ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

2006-09-05 08:35:49
todd glassey wrote:

I originally said two...and would prefer that.

What I am saying is that there should be a total of two or three instances
as a NOMCOM candidate and that is a much different statement than figuring
who is in office now and who is eligible...As to what it prevents-career
Internet Standards jockey's.

And since the purpose is to keep the IETF honest, I want the same term
limits for any and all IETF positions, including the TRUST as well.
I usually route around ietf political damage as much as possible, but the
real life experience at least here in California is that this is a load of hooey. Term limits don't do any of these things, they just rearrange the deck chairs. There will always be "Internet-Standards-Jockeys", it's just a question of whether the power they wield is transparent or not. Making them move to the shadows --
as power brokers always do when they can't be in power themselves -- changes
the dynamic, but it doesn't do what you claim. The one thing that it *does*
do is create clue scarcity when that wasn't a necessary outcome before. Which
of course benefits the power brokers, not the process or constituency.

But if you really want to prevent "career Internet Standards Jockey's", why
not go to the root of the problem: IETF participation in general. Why wouldn't
it be a good idea to prevent people who've been participating for, oh say, 5
years to participate anymore? That would really clear out the dead wood.

      Mike

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf