Spencer,
I agree that it takes time to learn the job. That is one reason to have
staggered terms with two ADs per area. But I have major problems with
other portions of the draft.
For one, a major reason the NOMCOM sees a dirth of candidates is the
major commitment required to do the job (be that IESG or IAB). Most
small employers simply can't play (although there are exceptions), and
individual contractors and even managers at large companies find it
difficult. And so I would disagree with Dave's conclusion:
When someone is "needed" for more than two terms, what does that say about
the state of their area?
as I believe it really doesn't say much.
There is a natural tendency to attempt to break up "good old boy" clubs.
One way to do that is to force change in the leadership. But we will
do so at our own peril. We have very few people who come anywhere near
close to running the transport directorate, for instance. The routing
area is just as specialized. And those who are qualified run into all
the time problems I mentioned above. And so, length of service is only
one factor.
If we look at other term limit "solutions", I think we find that the
original selection methods (e.g., elections) are viewed as not having
worked. In this case, we have the power to change the original
selection method. In our case, I think we have a problem with
transparency, and I believe it's been discussed on this very list.
If we were to do any experiments, I would propose we work on that, and
not on booting out people simply because they've been on the IESG for
more than 1 term.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf