Hi all,
Is it true true that we suffer from a lack of IESG candidates? I've often heard
this claim, but I've been asked by the NOMCOM to comment on list for the part
few years & it seemed that there were capable names on the lists (unless they
were all ringers).
John
====================
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Margaret Wasserman <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com>
Date: 05/07/2005 5:43 pm
Hi John,
At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible
candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which,
personally, I think would be healthy).
What is "reasonable turnover" for the IESG?
I haven't been on a nomcom, but (from the outside) most of them seem
to start with the assumption that they should not change more than 3
IESG members at a time. If that is considered prudent, then we are
talking about a situation where a maximum of 1/4 of the IESG will be
intentionally replaced each cycle. Factoring in mid-term resignations
and the possibility that the nomcom may occasionally make a poor
choice requiring quicker turnover, successful ADs who are willing to
continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10
years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice.
What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would
be the impacts of having more new ADs each year?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf