Re: CONSENSUS: should there be term limits?

[todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Comment at bottom -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <kre@MUNNARI.OZ.AU>
To: "James M Galvin" <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS: should there be term limits?


>     Date:        Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:00:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>     From:        James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
>     Message-ID:
<Pine.WNT.4.43.0203171647160.-561305@oemcomputer.ietf53.cw.net>
>
>   | I believe the consensus for the question of whether or not there
should
>   | be term limits is:
>   |
>   |     there should not be term limits.
>
>   | This discussion is closed.
>   |
>   | If you disagree with the determined consensus please reply to this
>   | message on the list.
>
> I think you have leapt to the conclusion that will eventually be
> reached (and which I happen to agree with), but I think you leapt
> far too quickly.
>
> Deciding consensus on the basis of less than 3 days discussion
> (your original message with the Subject was Thu Mar 14, 21:27 -0500,
> your "consensus reached" was Sun Mar 17, 17:00 -0500) is just way
> too quick, in any circumstances.
>
> When those three days are the three days immediately preceding an IETF
> meeting (and 2 of them are a weekend), when many people could be expected
> to be travelling, this leaping is really just too much.
>
> If this process is every going to achieve anything that anyone would
> even consider as half way reasonable, it needs to at least pretend to
> observe some kind of open discussion.
>
> kre

Its also proof of the problem.

>