Why is this a no-op for the reasons you state? You're rationale is good,
yet past experience shows the following to be true:
that if a candidate is a sitting AD who wants the position again,
why would they have ever be replaced?
The opposite of this has happened within the last few years (do I need to
give the example?). If it can happen without this type of
language/guidance (from a document such as yours), then it should be more
likely to happen with the language in a document such as yours.
*Acceptable* turnover is the goal here, right? What I'm proposing is the
opposite of the unwritten rule in boxing, where you have to beat the champ
to take the title belt away because the benefit of doubt will always go
towards the champ.
We seem to have a similar situation here, if a sitting AD wants to stay in
the position, unless that individual reeeeally screw up (there is an
example of this, too, recently), they keep the position.
This should not continue, which is why I am please with your effort.
At 11:19 PM 7/27/2005 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Now I'm going to need to be a little cynical...
--On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 18:44 -0500 "James M. Polk"
> How about a NONCOM review situation roughly such as this:
> if there is more than one candidate that can do the AD
> position for a particular area, if an active AD is one on the
> short list, and if that AD has alraedy severed 2 terms, the
> existing AD is not the one chosen for the new term.
> This will cause turnover only when there is an acceptable
> replacement as determined by the NONCOM, and not leave a
> situation in which there isn't any viable choice.
This is actually a no-op. Please remember that there are not,
and probably cannot be, any really objective and sufficient
criteria for "can do the AD job" or for who is or is not a
"desirable candidate". Consequently, an incumbent will _always_
be more qualified than a potential replacement, if only because
the incumbent already knows the job and the replacement will
need to read in. In addition, an incumbent is always more or
less a known quality, while the behavior someone new on the IESG
is always uncertain.
So that would leave us essentially where we are today.
Worse, making a determination that there are additional
qualified candidates blows away the notion of evaluating
incumbent ADs separately from potential new candidates so that
the latter are never "running against" an incumbent, which is a
key element of the approach described in the draft.
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.
Ietf mailing list