Re: Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
On rereading, my previous reply could have been better formulated.. --On 1. august 2005 12:42 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism. Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum ;-) The selection mechanism I advocated was the following (quoted from the expired draft): 5. Details All members of the leadership are selected by the nomcom for membership in an area. The nomcom also selects which member is supervisor and vice supervisor for an area. [UNCERTAIN]The supervisor may also be selected by the members of the council, or by other means. Yearly selection by the council? It's also been suggested that instead of nomcom selecting everyone, the leadership team can make selections to the area councils, based on recommendations from the area supervisor. This would not increase the load on the nomcom as much as envisaged here. [/UNCERTAIN] Special care should be taken that the composition of area teams and the leadership team results in functional teams. (The term area supervisor is a concept that is a successor to the current term AD - the draft tried to use new names to point out that things changed.) One core difference between this idea and directorates is that directorates serve, explicitly, at the pleasure of an AD; ADs can create, disband or replace directorates without any public input or control. Your concern is one reason why the idea was different. Note that nothing here prevents the nomcom from picking people outside the council to be supervisor; if all is well, common sense would say that they don't, but when things are not well, they should have the power (IMHO). But the idea didn't generate any groundswell of let's do it, either in the community or in the IESG, so I turned to fixing things that were more obviously broken, with more obvious fixes. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Hi, (I'll write my comments at the end of this thread.) I'm not sure if I can see whether the two-phased approach could work or not, so at the moment I don't want to take a stance one way or the other. However, there was one part in the review of incumbents (sect 2.1), below, that concerned me which is probably worth a mention. Specifically, the proposal seems to be underlining (perhaps the unstated belief by some) that if a potential AD candidate isn't willing to sign up for at least 4 years, he'll be seen as an incompetent, inable, and/or mal- or non-feasant. That's not good. It may be my age, but IMHO even two years of commitment is significant. Do we really want to cut down the list of people even further by discouraging folks who wouldn't want to get a 4 year sentence? It seems to me that a problem could be that, - folks don't learn the trade fast enough * maybe there aren't sufficient knowledge of the job beforehand, so we can't coach the people to the job before they take it. [it might be that the document shepherding, genart/directorate review processes, etc. may have helped here recently] * or we need to ensure there's a way to learn it faster, either by selecting and identifying the candidates who are more prepared or creating the preparatory materials which could be useful for the new folks. - the terms, if meant to be held at least twice for any reason except incompetence, are too long * maybe the terms should be 1.5 years or whatever instead (this would cause problems for nomcom schedules, I guess, though). In Phase 1, the Nomcom will evaluate the performance of incumbents, collecting information from the community as needed to do that. The nomcom is instructed that an incumbent should be returned once (i.e., permitted/encouraged to serve two terms) unless there is strong evidence of problems (e.g., incompetence, inability to work with WGs, non-feasance, or malfeasance). Conversely, the nomcom should assume that it is better to return an incumbent who has served two terms to the community and active WG work unless some special circumstances, including but not limited to an outstanding job, apply. [...] -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Discussion has been couched in terms of whether term limits are a good thing. Really, what the discussion should be about is whether limits on the NomCom are a good thing. It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them. The NomCom is pivotal in IETF governance and is also vulnerable to attacks. The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management. Ideally, term limits should be ad hoc, per person, as needed. If you don't like the fact that some AD has been around forever, tell the NomCom. If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and that potential competency should be considered important ... tell the NomCom. That's what they are there for. I'm assuming you're already volunteering to be on it. If there is justification for the firing of a long-time AD, well, the AD probably should feel embarrassed. Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the IETF and the Internet, to avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too politically correct. Those who have left IESG/IAB positions and taken up others have done so because they are capable and want to contribute. The fact that they can do so does not mean it is all right to force them out of positions where they might be even better for the IETF. As for learning the trade, I don't know. IESG/IAB members could have an apprentice program from their directorates etc., but as has been said, there is nothing like actually being in it. Certainly, forcing people out at inappropriate times is way off the path of wisdom. In summary, give guidelines and opinions to the NomCom but don't restrict them unless they have too much power. swb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
On 08/01/2005 11:24 AM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: Scott, I dunno. I thought that some of the discussion has been about circulation of folks in leadership positions. Some feel its good, some feel its bad. Its not strictly term-limits as in goverment posts, as quite many former IAB IESG members are extremely active in technical discussions, writing drafts, chairing bofs working groups. In my experience, this is a really good thing. I'm not entirely convinced that its important for IESG members to stay in a position for a long time. I don't have a strong opinion, so I'm definately open for discussion on this. I'm not saying it is, nor am I saying you shouldn't have circulation. I'm saying that institutionalizing this, bureaucratizing it, is a mistake. This has the same feel as the end-to-end argument. Institutionalized, general-purpose rules will rarely meet the needs of a particular situation. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Scott, I dunno. I thought that some of the discussion has been about circulation of folks in leadership positions. Some feel its good, some feel its bad. Its not strictly term-limits as in goverment posts, as quite many former IAB IESG members are extremely active in technical discussions, writing drafts, chairing bofs working groups. In my experience, this is a really good thing. I'm not entirely convinced that its important for IESG members to stay in a position for a long time. I don't have a strong opinion, so I'm definately open for discussion on this. John L. From: Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com Date: 2005/08/01 Mon AM 11:50:31 EEST To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt Discussion has been couched in terms of whether term limits are a good thing. Really, what the discussion should be about is whether limits on the NomCom are a good thing. It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them. The NomCom is pivotal in IETF governance and is also vulnerable to attacks. The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management. Ideally, term limits should be ad hoc, per person, as needed. If you don't like the fact that some AD has been around forever, tell the NomCom. If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and that potential competency should be considered important ... tell the NomCom. That's what they are there for. I'm assuming you're already volunteering to be on it. If there is justification for the firing of a long-time AD, well, the AD probably should feel embarrassed. Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the IETF and the Internet, to avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too politically correct. Those who have left IESG/IAB positions and taken up others have done so because they are capable and want to contribute. The fact that they can do so does not mean it is all right to force them out of positions where they might be even better for the IETF. As for learning the trade, I don't know. IESG/IAB members could have an apprentice program from their directorates etc., but as has been said, there is nothing like actually being in it. Certainly, forcing people out at inappropriate times is way off the path of wisdom. In summary, give guidelines and opinions to the NomCom but don't restrict them unless they have too much power. swb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
I'm saying that institutionalizing this, bureaucratizing it, is a mistake. This has the same feel as the end-to-end argument. Institutionalized, general-purpose rules will rarely meet the needs of a particular situation. Very well stated. That conclusion applies here, as well as in most other situations. /L-E ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
On 8/1/05 at 10:50 AM +0200, Scott W Brim wrote: It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them. The document gives them guidelines and does not constrict them. Where is the problem? The document expresses a preference (and the community needs to be heard on whether they agree with that preference) that after 1-term, the NomCom should default to reappoint good folks (because it's worth having folks with 1 term of experience stay on) and after 2 terms should default to not reappoint (in order to get some new folks experience and get the experience folks back on the ground and into other non-IESG work). I personally would like to see more people get experience on the IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the community before they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the proposal. But I don't see where you're having a problem. The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management. I cannot tell you how much I disagree with that statement. The NomCom should hear the people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management *loud and clear*. The current IETF management is represented with liaisons on the NomCom, so the NomCom gets plenty of input from folks participating in the way things are going in IETF management. And overall, it's *much* easier for the NomCom (and the community) to pat everyone on the head and say You're doing a fine job. When someone gets up the gumption to complain about the leadership, that should get serious consideration. Sometimes people complaining are just being complainers. But I see no reason to defend the NomCom against complainers in general. If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and that potential competency should be considered important ... tell the NomCom. If there is community consensus that there are such criteria, communicating them in a document seems quite reasonable (and more efficient than having NomCom solicit individuals). Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the IETF and the Internet, to avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too politically correct. Scott, what in the draft would force this case? This is just FUD mongering. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ QUALCOMM Incorporated ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Pete Resnick wrote: I personally would like to see more people get experience on the IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the community before they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the proposal. Why discourage the NOMCOM from picking the best person for the job? It's easy for the IESG members to get back into the community before they're completely burned out: don't reup. I don't see that the IESG will improve simply with new blood, and what I do see is an attempt to fix a vague problem by spraying bullets indiscriminately. Call them guidelines or preferences or what-have-you, if we write them down it will take a very strong NOMCOM to say, Really, Bert Wijnen is the man for the job (for example). Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
On 8/1/05 at 4:47 PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: Pete Resnick wrote: I personally would like to see more people get experience on the IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the community before they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the proposal. Why discourage the NOMCOM from picking the best person for the job? First of all, it's naive to think that comparing incumbents to newcomers ends you up picking the best person for the job. There's the devil you know effect: People are much more inclined to pick someone who they know (even if they have known faults) over people who are unknown quantities because you can rather gather enough information to convince yourself that the new person *is* the best person for the job. In fact, I've seen ample evidence (not conclusive information since NomCom negotiations are confidential) that NomComs will pick people who have demonstrable problems being ADs on the grounds that they couldn't convince themselves someone else was better. Second, we have the problem of people who *are* the best person for the job not even applying solely on the grounds that they don't want to challenge the incumbent (i.e., the Jeff Schiller effect). We have a pool of people in the IETF that is large and deep with ability. If incumbents re-upping causes us not to be able to use that pool, that's WORSE for the IETF. I think we'd get more people who were qualified to jump in if they knew that the likelihood was low for 2+ term folks to get re-upped. Finally, by dint of human nature, NomComs don't always select the best person for the job. On the not-so-great side, sometimes there are feelings of loyalty involved or people are put into positions because other positions (to which they were better suited) were not open. But more importantly, being best is not a binary quality: Sometimes there is someone who is best, but for reasons of leadership development might be passed over for someone who is less optimal, but there are hopes that eventually they will be best. I think it is a good thing for the NomCom to be encouraged out of falling into natural human patterns of re-upping people and getting some fresh blood into the leadership. It's easy for the IESG members to get back into the community before they're completely burned out: don't reup. Nonsense. All sorts of personal feelings (felling that stepping down is some sort of failure, feelings of needing to do the right thing for the IETF, and even less positive things like career implications or pride in being in the leadership) can cause people to do things that are not in the best interest of the community, even if their intentions are good. I can point to several examples (which I won't publicly) of people who were way passed burned out who, for whatever internal reasons, continued to stay on despite diminishing returns. I don't see that the IESG will improve simply with new blood Again, it's not just about improving the IESG (though I do think new blood is usually a pretty good thing). It's about leadership development. It's about giving the NomCom a reasonable way out of some pretty natural but problematic decision making patterns. And it's about getting experienced people who've been on the IESG back onto the front lines where I honestly think they'll do more good than they do now. and what I do see is an attempt to fix a vague problem by spraying bullets indiscriminately. I don't see any of the above as vague problems. Call them guidelines or preferences or what-have-you, if we write them down it will take a very strong NOMCOM to say, Really, Bert Wijnen is the man for the job (for example). Yup. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
--On 27. juli 2005 09:08 -0400 Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to disagree somewhat with this line suggesting stricter limits on serving duration. I agree that a lack of bench strength is a real problem that should be addressed. I suspect that we may have more bench strength than we think. I strongly suspect that with some of the other changes being discussed (I like the separate review idea, although I think it needs some work) there will be more capability to do more sane jobs. However, defining the process so taht if we turn out to have insufficient bench strength we produce a disaster seems extremely bad design. I have argued at times (draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel) that our current structure of 2 area-specific ADs managing a bunch of WG-specific WG chairs is not optimal. If the *normal* case for an area was that one had a group of 5-10 area experts, one (or two) of which was serving as AD at any time, and the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, I think our bench strength would be greatly increased. It would also make a lot of the arguments for 2-AD areas less convincing. But that's entirely orthogonal to draft-klensin-nomcom-terms, which is why I changed the subject. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
I have argued at times (draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel) that our current structure of 2 area-specific ADs managing a bunch of WG-specific WG chairs is not optimal. Yeah, and I wish it hadn't expired ... perhaps we could try again, now that Harald has some time on his retired-AD hands? It is orthogonal, but I liked it a couple of years ago ... Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism. Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum ;-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism. Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum ;-) I'm thinking the idea might be closer to... Each AD creates a staff of volunteers underneath themselves to help with all the pesky details of running the IESG. (and in the mean time - they get help from 2-3 additional people that they are working closely with) From there each AD could say that in the last 6 months of my term person A was really running the show anyway - why don't we let them be the AD for a while, and I will get back to productive IETF work (or become their assistant for a while). Now we have a group of people that knows what they are getting into when they finally put that yellow dot on. Another alternative might be rolling terms for each AD, with a (sorry incoming Intel lingo here) two-in-a-box approach. As a new AD is approved, the term overlaps with the Old AD for a year. Then they can serve as long as they want - with the caviat they are expected to give a year notification so they can serve the last year of their term with the new incoming AD. (this might just naturally shorten the terms as people realize it is easier to do the job as a pair than all alone G) Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
--On 1. august 2005 12:42 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism. Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum ;-) please read the draft this margin is not wide enough to contain the proof that it isn't :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:42:30PM -0400, Eric Rosen wrote: the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism. Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum ;-) In the corporate world, it's called succession planning, and part the responsibilities and duties of every responsible leader. We actually have something rather close to this already, which is the various Area Directorates. Different areas seem to have different levels of health in terms of how active the directorate is, how formal is directorate membership, and how much work gets delegated from the AD(s) to the directorate. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Personal opinion: My take is that there are two main aspects to John's proposal. I think that separating them out, rather than combining them as in the -00 draft, somewhat confuses the issue. 1. Defined criteria for appointee performance, to be objectively evaluated towards the end of their terms. I think this is an excellent idea - just like annual evaluations that most of us have in our day jobs, this would be useful for everybody, including new ADs, incumbents who are reappointed, and incumbents who are not reappointed and want to know why. As I already noted, we can't switch this on from one day to the next - the evaluation criteria have to be set up first, with the evaluations applied later. And the criteria must be fair with respect to the job description and the workload. 2. Strong guidance to the NomCom about how to strike the correct balance between continuity and turnover. I think giving such guidance to NomCom is a good idea on balance. We have running code proof that the weak guidance in RFC 3777 leads to some NomComs going for a lot of turnover and other NomComs going for almost none. I remain against rigid term limits, but guidance that says, basically you need a good reason *not* to re-appoint a 2 year AD, and you need a good reason to re-appoint a 4+ year AD seems better than what we have today. The advantage of separating the criteria/evaluation part from the actual nominating/appointing part is that this will avoid contaminating the evaluation with concerns about turnover. It could even be done by a separate team, perhaps. Another advantage is that point 2 is completely compatible with RFC 3777 as written. Whereas point 1 needs quite some work. Brian Richard Draves wrote: [I'm sorry to be joining this discussion late.] I see several different goals in John's draft: 1. Setting guidelines for length of service. 2. Early notification to incumbents. 3. Reducing the nomcom's workload. I think giving the nomcom more guidance about appropriate length of service is a fine thing. (And I tend to agree that service beyond three terms should be unusual.) Having a generally-recognized length of service would help generate candidates to replace a well-regarded AD who has served several terms. I think announcing early decisions regarding incumbents is not good. I think there's great value in looking at the slate of candidates as a whole. I don't like the idea of making a decision about an incumbent without seeing the pool of potential replacements. The goal of simplifying life for the nomcom is laudable, but in fact if an AD incumbent is doing a good job, there are generally very few credible willing alternatives for the job so it doesn't take many cycles to sort out the situation. So I don't think this proposal would reduce the nomcom's workload. Rich ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
More logical version Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Of course, my second sentence is written backwards. Duh. I *really* think that combining them as in the -00 draft, rather than separating them out, somewhat confuses the issue. Brian Brian E Carpenter wrote: Personal opinion: My take is that there are two main aspects to John's proposal. I think that separating them out, rather than combining them as in the -00 draft, somewhat confuses the issue. 1. Defined criteria for appointee performance, to be objectively evaluated towards the end of their terms. I think this is an excellent idea - just like annual evaluations that most of us have in our day jobs, this would be useful for everybody, including new ADs, incumbents who are reappointed, and incumbents who are not reappointed and want to know why. As I already noted, we can't switch this on from one day to the next - the evaluation criteria have to be set up first, with the evaluations applied later. And the criteria must be fair with respect to the job description and the workload. 2. Strong guidance to the NomCom about how to strike the correct balance between continuity and turnover. I think giving such guidance to NomCom is a good idea on balance. We have running code proof that the weak guidance in RFC 3777 leads to some NomComs going for a lot of turnover and other NomComs going for almost none. I remain against rigid term limits, but guidance that says, basically you need a good reason *not* to re-appoint a 2 year AD, and you need a good reason to re-appoint a 4+ year AD seems better than what we have today. The advantage of separating the criteria/evaluation part from the actual nominating/appointing part is that this will avoid contaminating the evaluation with concerns about turnover. It could even be done by a separate team, perhaps. Another advantage is that point 2 is completely compatible with RFC 3777 as written. Whereas point 1 needs quite some work. Brian Richard Draves wrote: [I'm sorry to be joining this discussion late.] I see several different goals in John's draft: 1. Setting guidelines for length of service. 2. Early notification to incumbents. 3. Reducing the nomcom's workload. I think giving the nomcom more guidance about appropriate length of service is a fine thing. (And I tend to agree that service beyond three terms should be unusual.) Having a generally-recognized length of service would help generate candidates to replace a well-regarded AD who has served several terms. I think announcing early decisions regarding incumbents is not good. I think there's great value in looking at the slate of candidates as a whole. I don't like the idea of making a decision about an incumbent without seeing the pool of potential replacements. The goal of simplifying life for the nomcom is laudable, but in fact if an AD incumbent is doing a good job, there are generally very few credible willing alternatives for the job so it doesn't take many cycles to sort out the situation. So I don't think this proposal would reduce the nomcom's workload. Rich ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti For the 3rd term, I would place the incumbent at the same level as a new candidate (assuming neutral feedback on the sitting AD, or even if he/she is doing a very good job). For the 4th term, I would favor new candidates than the incumbent (so unless the sitting AD is excellent and the area absolutely needs him/her, and no one else can do half-the-job etc. :-)). I really think this is missing the point. No matter how good an incumbent they are much less likely to ask questions of the form 'why has this WG existed for over a decade?', 'why isn't it finished?', 'why is nobody using it?' ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: No matter how good an incumbent they are much less likely to ask questions of the form 'why has this WG existed for over a decade?', 'why isn't it finished?', 'why is nobody using it?' If an AD isn't asking those questions it's probably because it's not taking any of his/her time. And if it's not taking their time I really don't care if it exists or not. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: No matter how good an incumbent they are much less likely to ask questions of the form 'why has this WG existed for over a decade?', 'why isn't it finished?', 'why is nobody using it?' If an AD isn't asking those questions it's probably because it's not taking any of his/her time. And if it's not taking their time I really don't care if it exists or not. What if you were planning to use the output of the Working Group? The Internet faces two rather serious problems. The Internet is not secure and we are running out of address space faster than IPv6 deployment is proceeding. We really could use a version of DNSSEC that can be deployed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: More logical version Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
--On Friday, 29 July, 2005 11:43 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, my second sentence is written backwards. Duh. I *really* think that combining them as in the -00 draft, rather than separating them out, somewhat confuses the issue. Let me explain why I did it, and, in the process, quibble with your characterization. That doesn't mean the two should not be split up -- I just want to explain my reasoning. ... My take is that there are two main aspects to John's proposal. I think that separating them out, rather than combining them as in the -00 draft, somewhat confuses the issue. 1. Defined criteria for appointee performance, to be objectively evaluated towards the end of their terms. I think this is an excellent idea - just like annual evaluations that most of us have in our day jobs, this would be useful for everybody, including new ADs, incumbents who are reappointed, and incumbents who are not reappointed and want to know why. Yes, but... As I already noted, we can't switch this on from one day to the next - the evaluation criteria have to be set up first, with the evaluations applied later. And the criteria must be fair with respect to the job description and the workload. I carefully didn't say defined criteria. I think that, for the IETF, while defined criteria are certainly a desirable target in principle, they lie on the road to madness.In your day job, you presumably have a more or less specific job description. There are clear, and presumably fairly efficient, ways to change that job description when that becomes necessary. And evaluation criteria typically track the job description. With the IETF, things change and we expect the various entities involved to adapt. The intent behind the question I asked you offlist about the authority for the IESG's back-stop role wasn't about what RFC 2026 says, but about how it has been interpreted to give individual ADs the authority to block anything, or even hold it for individual review. For me, and I would suggest for the community at the time the introductory text in section 6 of 2026, was written, the key phrases in that paragraph are at the beginning of the last sentence: ...experienced collective judgment of the IESG and concerning the technical quality. To me, those phrases put significant constraints on actions (or blocking non-actions) of individual ADs or on judgment based on personal taste and not experience. They also put significant constraints on IESG _editorial_ nit-picking about issues that do not significantly impact technical quality. From that perspective, things have gotten somewhat out of balance. The Discuss draft is, in that regard, very helpful in starting to improve the balance, although it is probably not the only piece of the puzzle. But the point is that the fact that the IESG can interpret that text differently than I do, or even differently from the way a large fraction of the community does (were that the case), is, as far as I am concerned, A Good Thing. Circumstances change and our ability to make adjustments, nearly in real time, to reflect those changing circumstances, is vital. I believe that insisting that the IESG discuss every possible change and adaptation with the community at length before making it would be, well, silly... and perhaps fatally silly. I believe that the IESG does need to be much better at informing the community about decisions and changes made (that has improved significantly over the last year or so, but still isn't where, IMO, it should be) and to provide realistic opportunities for feedback, course corrections, and rebalancing from the community (areas in which we are, again just IMO, doing less well). But the flexibility needs to be there. To some extent, what we tell the IESG and the nomcom is you understand the general objectives, please apply the criteria needed to make things work. The nomcom is not expected to pick people out, or evaluate them, based on some fixed criteria. They are expected to figure out what the community needs at a given time and make decisions accordingly. Their questions to the community, IMO, should focus at least as much on what does the community or this area need as on is this person suitable (at least judging from questions asked, they do pretty well at that). So, from my point of view, thanks, but I deliberately didn't propose the development of specific criteria that have to get locked in place, be predictable, and require process to institute and change.I do not consider, e.g., a one-term AD should be returned for a second term unless that person has really not worked out to be a specific performance criterion. Even though it is fairly specific guidance to the nomcom as to how to proceed, the interpretation of really not worked out is up to them... and should be. None of that reduces the value for everybody, including new ADs, incumbents who are reappointed, and
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: What if you were planning to use the output of the Working Group? Sorry, I thought you were aiming toward the age old this working group has existed too long debate. On the usefulness question, I actually think an experienced AD is going to know what works and what doesn't, more so than an inexperienced one. But the AD doesn't invent the ideas. So... The Internet faces two rather serious problems. The Internet is not secure and we are running out of address space faster than IPv6 deployment is proceeding. Imminent Death of the Net Predicted® Wake me when it happens. Economics will have its say here, IMHO. We really could use a version of DNSSEC that can be deployed. Ummm... Physician, Heal Thyself? Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Sorry, I thought you were aiming toward the age old this working group has existed too long debate. On the usefulness question, I actually think an experienced AD is going to know what works and what doesn't, more so than an inexperienced one. But the AD doesn't invent the ideas. So... It is possible to be too experienced - as was demonstrated during certain very extended incumbencies. The particular behavior I was refering to was 'gilding the turd'. Five or six years ago there was rather a lot of effort going into activities that made minor improvements to specs that were completely undeployable. The Internet faces two rather serious problems. The Internet is not secure and we are running out of address space faster than IPv6 deployment is proceeding. Imminent Death of the Net Predicted(r) Wake me when it happens. Economics will have its say here, IMHO. Currently Internet crime is costing around a billion to ten billion dollars a year. At what point do you feel that there is a crisis worthy of your attention? We really could use a version of DNSSEC that can be deployed. Ummm... Physician, Heal Thyself? If the WG had accepted my proposal the spec would have been deployed three years ago. At this point we are still waiting for Moore's law to make RAM cheaper. Most new ADs tell a number of groups that they are on notice and must complete or be shut down, these threats are followed through rather less often. There is a particular type of deadlock that arises where a group has not got a workable spec, refuses to consider the type of changes necessary to make it workable and refuses to allow any other group to consider the issue. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Dear Philip and Eliot, Without going through the full-bore version of this discussion, I have to say I was discouraged when the best IETF participants could do (when some unfamiliar person started e-mailing people who had registered for the the social and asking for more details on credit cards) was to e-mail the IETF Discussion list and ask, is this a phishing attack? Given the current state of the art, that was NOT a bad solution! I'm not trying to prove the existence of a final ultimate solution to spam simply because a problem exists, I'm simply trying to say that ordinary people who don't belong to a mailing list with an awful lot of SMTP talent may have even fewer resources in trying to use the Internet as a tool, but not a self-inflicted burglary tool :-( Spencer The Internet faces two rather serious problems. The Internet is not secure and we are running out of address space faster than IPv6 deployment is proceeding. Imminent Death of the Net Predicted(r) Wake me when it happens. Economics will have its say here, IMHO. Currently Internet crime is costing around a billion to ten billion dollars a year. At what point do you feel that there is a crisis worthy of your attention? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Motivation for draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt and draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.txt
I'm replying to John's note rather than somewhere in the thread because he's given me a good subject line for what I want to say at this point. We have to be very careful here to make coherent sets of changes that taken together make things better rather than worse. It is unthinkable to institute a system in which ADs can be removed for not meeting criteria that weren't defined when they were appointed. It's elementary in human resource management that you only measure people against metrics that they signed up for. Very specifically, the existing ADs (except me) were told by the NomCom to expect a half time job. Well, it's a half time job that includes managing 10 WGs on average and reviewing 400 to 500 documents a year. It's impossible. So, whatever we think of the details of John's two drafts, and I have *lots* of detailed comments I could make, we can only reasonably solve the two equations simultaneously: make the IESG workload fit the job description, and make the ADs accountable. Further along the line of coherent changes, I don't want to see our process documents becoming even more of a patchwork than they already are. So a goal needs to be: instead of ending up with yet more patches to RFC 2026 and patches to RFC 3777, let's design a document roadmap that leads to a simple and coherent set of process documents. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
John C Klensin wrote: ... p.s. We've got something of a tradition of moving people from the IESG to the IAB and vice versa. ... Nothing in the proposal would prohibit them from ending up on either body later, even the one they served on before, but I believe the break is A Good Thing for both the IETF and the individuals involved. I agree, though my time off between the IAB and the IESG turned into time served as a WG Chair. But I think that for this sort of thing we should go for guidelines rather than rules. Over-constraining the system is not in our interests. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
--On Thursday, 28 July, 2005 15:24 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John C Klensin wrote: ... p.s. We've got something of a tradition of moving people from the IESG to the IAB and vice versa. ... Nothing in the proposal would prohibit them from ending up on either body later, even the one they served on before, but I believe the break is A Good Thing for both the IETF and the individuals involved. I agree, though my time off between the IAB and the IESG turned into time served as a WG Chair. My notion of break as used above is not break from the IETF but break from the formal, IESG/IAB leadership. I think putting in that time as a WG chair is precisely the sort of perspective-regainer that is desirable. For some people, doing the work is better than chairing it, but that is a fine point and an individual one.I also have bias that it would be better for the community if people like former IESG and IAB members would spend their time mentoring and supporting the next round of upcoming leadership rather than taking on, e.g., WG Chair roles themselves, but that is, again, an individual matter. But I think that for this sort of thing we should go for guidelines rather than rules. Over-constraining the system is not in our interests. I completely agree. In many cases, I'd even favor suggestions over guidelines. The only thing that seems to require a rule or near-rule is rotation off the IESG --as a break and to make the experience available to others. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Dear John Just to chime in here... --On Thursday, 28 July, 2005 15:24 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John C Klensin wrote: ... p.s. We've got something of a tradition of moving people from the IESG to the IAB and vice versa. ... Nothing in the proposal would prohibit them from ending up on either body later, even the one they served on before, but I believe the break is A Good Thing for both the IETF and the individuals involved. I agree, though my time off between the IAB and the IESG turned into time served as a WG Chair. My notion of break as used above is not break from the IETF but break from the formal, IESG/IAB leadership. I think putting in that time as a WG chair is precisely the sort of perspective-regainer that is desirable. For some people, doing the work is better than chairing it, but that is a fine point and an individual one.I also have bias that it would be better for the community if people like former IESG and IAB members would spend their time mentoring and supporting the next round of upcoming leadership rather than taking on, e.g., WG Chair roles themselves, but that is, again, an individual matter. IIRC, Brian ended up serving as co-chair in multi6, at a pretty important time in the life of that working group. It was actually A Good Thing that Brian was available to serve. Scott Bradner has served as newtrk chair, and as document editor for several of the IPR BCP updates. Erik Nordmark is now chairing TRILL, which I'm pretty excited about. So I think Brian's note actually understated the type of Good Thing that can happen when experienced IAB and IESG types take a break. I'm sure other ex-ADs and ex-IAB types have also been significant contributors while taking a break from formal IETF leadership, and don't mean to slight them at all - but these are the folks who have crossed my paths in working groups, in the past couple of years. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
[I'm sorry to be joining this discussion late.] I see several different goals in John's draft: 1. Setting guidelines for length of service. 2. Early notification to incumbents. 3. Reducing the nomcom's workload. I think giving the nomcom more guidance about appropriate length of service is a fine thing. (And I tend to agree that service beyond three terms should be unusual.) Having a generally-recognized length of service would help generate candidates to replace a well-regarded AD who has served several terms. I think announcing early decisions regarding incumbents is not good. I think there's great value in looking at the slate of candidates as a whole. I don't like the idea of making a decision about an incumbent without seeing the pool of potential replacements. The goal of simplifying life for the nomcom is laudable, but in fact if an AD incumbent is doing a good job, there are generally very few credible willing alternatives for the job so it doesn't take many cycles to sort out the situation. So I don't think this proposal would reduce the nomcom's workload. Rich ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Motivation for draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt and draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.txt
On 15:08 28/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter said: Further along the line of coherent changes, I don't want to see our process documents becoming even more of a patchwork than they already are. So a goal needs to be: instead of ending up with yet more patches to RFC 2026 and patches to RFC 3777, let's design a document roadmap that leads to a simple and coherent set of process documents. There is an urgent need to get and get maintained Internet Book presenting the current status of the IETF and of the technology. The 4200 RFCs patchwork is unreadable and unmanageable. There must be a beginning to such a book. Starting with a description of IAB and IESG organisation and rules could be the best root of such an Internet Book Table of Content. Instead of writing a roadmap to write more documents, we could have the same documentation as a current status of the art + most expressed needs list, updated further on by the RFC evolution. Eventually the Internet Book would be the de facto reference, the RFCs the way to update it. Please indicate if that approach could be acceptable to IETF before I continue the engaged effort to make it produced and subsidized outside of the IETF, due to the lack of interest this proposition (I wish to be completed by press exposure and testing recogntion) met so far within the IETF. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Commenting only on the early decisions on the incumbents: I think the guidelines could be used to assign weights to incumbents against the potential candidates. Here is an excerpt from one of my postings on the term limits to the IETF list: +++ For the 2nd term, unless there is substantially more negative feedback than positive, reup the AD (we are told it takes about 1 year to learn the ropes so to speak, so it is disruptive to keep replacing people before they learn to do it well). For the 3rd term, I would place the incumbent at the same level as a new candidate (assuming neutral feedback on the sitting AD, or even if he/she is doing a very good job). For the 4th term, I would favor new candidates than the incumbent (so unless the sitting AD is excellent and the area absolutely needs him/her, and no one else can do half-the-job etc. :-)). Finally I think these should be like Pirate's code the *Code* is more of what you'd call *guidelines* than actual rules. :-) (Apologies for those who haven't watched the movie Pirates of the Caribbean). best, Lakshminath Richard Draves wrote: [I'm sorry to be joining this discussion late.] I see several different goals in John's draft: 1. Setting guidelines for length of service. 2. Early notification to incumbents. 3. Reducing the nomcom's workload. I think giving the nomcom more guidance about appropriate length of service is a fine thing. (And I tend to agree that service beyond three terms should be unusual.) Having a generally-recognized length of service would help generate candidates to replace a well-regarded AD who has served several terms. I think announcing early decisions regarding incumbents is not good. I think there's great value in looking at the slate of candidates as a whole. I don't like the idea of making a decision about an incumbent without seeing the pool of potential replacements. The goal of simplifying life for the nomcom is laudable, but in fact if an AD incumbent is doing a good job, there are generally very few credible willing alternatives for the job so it doesn't take many cycles to sort out the situation. So I don't think this proposal would reduce the nomcom's workload. Rich ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
I too like this draft and agree that having most IESG members serve for two terms is ideal and making it more the exception that people serve for three or four terms. I also like the flexibility it gives the NOMCOM without creating strict term limits. When someone is needed for more than two terms, what does that say about the state of their area? The IETF is based on the commitment of community participation, rather than the brilliance of individual leadership. If we do not have multiple, acceptable choices for an AD slot, then we have a deeper problem with the Area (and/or with the job of being AD, of course.) What would happen if the term limit were firm, with no exceptions? John Klensin keeps telling me that we do better when we don't have absolute prohibitions in our processes. In this case, I think he's trying to have enough flexibility that (for instance) if you have just replaced one AD in an area and some event happens that makes it impossible for the newest AD to serve, you don't have to replace the other AD AND the first AD's replacement in the same NOMCOM, just because the BCP says two terms and out. I'm OK with this level of flexibility. Do I think we could survive replacing both ADs in one NOMCOM? It hasn't happened often, but it has happened (isn't Routing the most recent example? and we still have a Routing Area). I am sympathetic to Dave's concern about areas that don't have AD bench strength. The draft still allows ADs to serve in a fourth term. If you can't replace an AD after three terms (one for training, one for effective leadership, and maybe one for transition), I think that's really, really bad. I would hope most NOMCOMs would be comfortable with replacing both ADs in the same cycle, but if the longer-serving AD has a bunch of working groups that are winding down, the NOMCOM might reasonably say we'll replace this AD next year - and if the BCP allows this, it might be the right thing to do. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
I have to disagree somewhat with this line suggesting stricter limits on serving duration. I agree that a lack of bench strength is a real problem that should be addressed. I suspect that we may have more bench strength than we think. I strongly suspect that with some of the other changes being discussed (I like the separate review idea, although I think it needs some work) there will be more capability to do more sane jobs. However, defining the process so taht if we turn out to have insufficient bench strength we produce a disaster seems extremely bad design. (When folks bring me protocol designs like that, I ask them ~are you really, 100% sure that problem can not occur so you don't need to design for it?~) The statements as written in the draft have the nice property that there is some wiggle room if things look wrong. My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room. As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work. I like the idea of considering incumbents on their own. But I can not find a way to make the two-phase system work without severe risk of backing ourselves into a corner. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 08:42 AM 7/27/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote: I too like this draft and agree that having most IESG members serve for two terms is ideal and making it more the exception that people serve for three or four terms. I also like the flexibility it gives the NOMCOM without creating strict term limits. When someone is needed for more than two terms, what does that say about the state of their area? The IETF is based on the commitment of community participation, rather than the brilliance of individual leadership. If we do not have multiple, acceptable choices for an AD slot, then we have a deeper problem with the Area (and/or with the job of being AD, of course.) What would happen if the term limit were firm, with no exceptions? John Klensin keeps telling me that we do better when we don't have absolute prohibitions in our processes. In this case, I think he's trying to have enough flexibility that (for instance) if you have just replaced one AD in an area and some event happens that makes it impossible for the newest AD to serve, you don't have to replace the other AD AND the first AD's replacement in the same NOMCOM, just because the BCP says two terms and out. I'm OK with this level of flexibility. Do I think we could survive replacing both ADs in one NOMCOM? It hasn't happened often, but it has happened (isn't Routing the most recent example? and we still have a Routing Area). I am sympathetic to Dave's concern about areas that don't have AD bench strength. The draft still allows ADs to serve in a fourth term. If you can't replace an AD after three terms (one for training, one for effective leadership, and maybe one for transition), I think that's really, really bad. I would hope most NOMCOMs would be comfortable with replacing both ADs in the same cycle, but if the longer-serving AD has a bunch of working groups that are winding down, the NOMCOM might reasonably say we'll replace this AD next year - and if the BCP allows this, it might be the right thing to do. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Spencer, I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from substantive comment. However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no, because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost certainly have to start about two months earlier. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the timeline, but I'm pretty sure we couldn't make it this year. And that's assuming we reached consensus very rapidly. Brian Spencer Dawkins wrote: This draft (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt) does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership continuity and next-generation leadership development. I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I could be wrong). The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing. If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very soon (at least two months before the Third IETF). So, I'm wondering... If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
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@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room. As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work. I must disagree. This decision is never publicized; so it is easily revisited if replacing that individual proves difficult. Further, I do not read the draft as requiring a black-and-white binary judgment on whether to replace an individual: I read it as requiring consideration of how effective an individual is before looking at who's available to replace him/her. I'd like to believe this could lead to non-judgmental discussions between the Nomcom and individuals whose terms are expiring about how the IETF community views their strengths and weaknesses. I don't expect even the individual involved to know whether the Nomcom is expecting to recommend someone else for that position. (This raises the question of how we might preserve some institutional memory of strengths and weaknesses. Alas, I have no good ideas there.) -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spencer Dawkins wrote: If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment? in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no, because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost certainly have to start about two months earlier. I'm not at all sure that we can't have sufficient overlap to fit it all into approximately the existing timeframe, but... We shouldn't even _try_ to make this part of their instructions. The Nomcom will be aware of this discussion: I'm pretty sure that someone will make sure all Nomcom members see it. We should let the Nomcom we're about to assemble consider this and make their own decision about how much of it to try. Then that Nomcom can make recommendations about necessary schedule changes for the next Nomcom. -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Brian - while I haven't thought through all of the implications of the process in draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt, I don't think the two-stage process will necessarily significantly length then process. The proposed process would require re-shuffling of of specific tasks, but I don't think it fundamentally adds any new work to the work in the current process. There are serialization and dependency timing issues, but I think there is also some work that might be eliminated from the current process. The proposed process might also provide some time saving by compartmentalizing the decision process - my intuition from recent experience on nomcom is that some of the deliberation might have gone more quickly if we had teased apart retention from nomination. And some of the decision process would go away in the case of ADs who have reached their term limits. - Ralph On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 15:13 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Spencer, I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from substantive comment. However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no, because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost certainly have to start about two months earlier. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the timeline, but I'm pretty sure we couldn't make it this year. And that's assuming we reached consensus very rapidly. Brian Spencer Dawkins wrote: This draft (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt) does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership continuity and next-generation leadership development. I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I could be wrong). The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing. If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very soon (at least two months before the Third IETF). So, I'm wondering... If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
There is one thing and one thing only that I believe term limits are good for: weakening the power of a body by reducing its experience level Do we really believe that the IESG and IAB are too powerful? Do we really want to ensure that the average level of experience on the IESG and IAB are under two years? If the average experience level of the IESG and IAB is significantly less than the paid staff, then the paid staff will be the ones that effectively determine the decision making process. If the IETF participants want there to be greater turnover on the IESG and IAB there are mechanisms to do so: nominate more and better candidates volunteer to serve on nomcom be proactive in providing nomcom feedback on the candidates I do not believe we need or in reality want to place arbitrary MUSTs or SHOULDs when it comes to the length of time someone can serve. Jeffrey Altman P.S. - being curious: what are the max terms for the IESG and IAB in their history? what are the average terms for the IESG and IAB in their history? what are the average and max terms of the current participants? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 When I served as an AD, one of the things that would happen around NOMCOM time is people would come to me and ask if I was re-upping because they would not put their name in if I was. This probably resulted in some of the best alternative candidates not being considered. The two tiered approach would avoid this issue completely. Though i agree with Brian that we need to be careful about the timing. -Jeff - -- = Jeffrey I. Schiller MIT Network Manager Information Services and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Room W92-190 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 617.253.0161 - Voice [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC563R8CBzV/QUlSsRAmwXAKC9TFrrp+SZtkuKgEWnLqV4b3uOYQCcDH7P D7MZvBIVskbW6N1mBdOkJWw= =Zn2C -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Someone has been kind enough to point out to me in private email that my reading skills are deficient. :^( Specifically, the draft says: At the end of this phase, the nomcom submits the list of returning candidates to the IAB as usual. The IAB makes its decision and the choices are announced to the community. The list of (remaining) open slots is then announced to the community and nominations and recommendations sought. I apologize for missing this; and I would strongly recommend that this language be removed. It would seriously lengthen the process (my apologies to Brian for saying otherwise); and it calls for too much omniscience on the part of the Nomcom. A tentative decision that a _serious_ search for alternatives is much easier and quicker to reach. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to leave no middle ground, where the Nomcom would like to replace an AD, but only if a reasonable alternate comes forth. (I know some folks think we need more turnover: I think merely having the Nomcom formally review will lead to this.) -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
P.S. - being curious: A quick analysis of http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html, counting terms by number of IETF meetings since that's how they're represented there, results in the following answers for the IESG. The IAB history page isn't as easy to analyze in the same way but someone certainly could do so. what are the max terms for the IESG and IAB in their history? 31 IETF meetings what are the average terms for the IESG and IAB in their history? 10.2 IETF meetings what are the average and max terms of the current participants? max = 28, average = 7.8 (This average counts Mark and Brian as having served 0 IETFs, based on the data set - the average counting just the 11 continuing ADs is 9.1) Bill Raw data at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/terms.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Motivation for draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt and draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.txt
Hi. As the perpetrator, I want to make several observations about the comments so far. I'm going to divide them into two (or maybe three) parts, with different subject lines. It might be a while before you see the others -- I'm trying to get some other things done this week including a couple of document reviews that I consider critical. Then I'm going to go back to lurking and let the discussion continue. First, there are a class of problems that, no matter how paranoid or conspiracy-creative one gets, cannot be blamed on the IESG (or any other element of the leadership. That is the tendency for the community to notice a problem, whine about the problem without being very specific about it, and then, well, repeat. We don't have even a hope of making progress without getting specific proposals on the table for discussion. So, I've generated some proposals in the form of draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00 and draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00. One might even consider draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-01 to be part of the package, although I, personally, consider it to be separate. I am not nearly deluded enough to believe that these are ready to go in their current form. Each contains, or more or less deliberately ignores, details that will need sorting out. That is what mailing list (and, if appropriate, meeting) discussion is all about. I would suggest that, in that discussion, people remember something that everyone who has implemented a production application knows from that side of their lives: while not spending enough time in design usually results in unworkable garbage, one can spend forever in design and still not get everything right. At some point, one has to find the right balance point between more design and implement the thing and hope the design is good enough to permit fixing the inevitable problems later. Finding that balance point is a really tricky bit of work. But pretending it isn't out there is not a recipe for anything good. I would also ask that people try to avoid the temptation to, as the saying goes, shoot fish in a barrel. It certainly is possible to nit-pick these proposals to death, just as it is possible to apply that remedy to almost anything else. If you think that things are just fine now, say so -- don't waste your time and everyone else's picking at the proposals. If you think that things are not just fine but that these proposals don't address the problem, please identify the problem better for us and propose some solutions -- again, don't bother wasting your time picking at these proposals. One of the difficulties of writing any proposal of these types around here is that a choice has to be made between * writing a conceptual document, with little detail, and having it attacked for not supplying the difficult details and * writing down the details, even if only as a proof that there really are possible consistent sets, and having it attacked because people don't like that particular set of details. In constructing these documents, I tried to find an in-between point, slightly favoring the latter. But there is no in-between point, so I expect to be attacked for both. Again, if you believe there is a problem that needs solving and that something of the general flavor of one or both of these might help, please focus on the improvements that need to be made and where the proposals miss the mark entirely, not on how many details were either omitted or undesirably included. Let me also go on record, right here, as not believing that these proposals, or their likely offspring, are going to be magic bullet solutions for anything. The IETF has, IMO, gotten into a very complex situation here. Some of the causes of that are external: changes in the role and perceived importance of the Internet, more standards bodies wanting to get into areas where previously only the IETF cared, economic factors and shifts, more internationalization of everything, and so on. The IETF either needs to figure out how to adapt to those changing circumstances in some way or we should just give it up, fold our tents, and go home. Adaptation includes a lot of options, ranging from refocusing what we do to making really fundamental changes in how we do it. And these proposals address almost none of that, except by accident. Now, what are they about? They are about making some basic changes in how we manage ourselves and the standards process. Either can be looked at in multiple ways -- more in a half empty or half full sense than in a solving lots of problems one. Specifically: One of them reduces IESG workload in the most effective way possible -- by changing the job description to eliminate a big chunk of the IESG's load and responsibilities. But, from a different perspective, its goal is to solve (or at least significantly improve) the very significant perceived problem when ADs need to manage WGs, take
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room. As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work. I like the idea of considering incumbents on their own. But I can not find a way to make the two-phase system work without severe risk of backing ourselves into a corner. Given the '2 terms' limitation described I think that it is not very likely that this would occur. A NOMCON is not very likely to be considering replacing an AD unless their first term gave a very very good reason to do so. The AD has in effect had to screw up in a pretty major way that is not attributed to being new to the job within their first 18 months. The most likely way that would happen is if they were not doing the job. The other advantage of the 2 terms limitation not mentioned so far is that it makes it much more attractive to an employer to have someone become an AD if they know that it is a fixed term commitment than if it is open ended. I can see a real advantage in terms of career development to having a member of my group serve a four year term. An eight year term for a single individual is a rather different matter. I would much rather have two (even three) individuals serve four year terms than have one effectively committed for a life sentence. The change also improves accountability. I think a lot of the problems caused during the 'old boys network' period were due to the perception that the members of the IESG had been permanently promoted to a higher status and that this represented the culmination of their IETF career. The four year time limit means that an AD who e.g. makes unilateral decisions that override WG consensus in unfair ways will eventually be called to account when they return to ordinary status. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Hi, Bill, Thanks for the quick crank through the data - it's pretty interesting, and especially valuable for discussion of this draft. Spencer (p.s. Bill pointed out in a private e-mail that the input dataset he is using seems to undercount General Area ADs pretty seriously - Fred Baker shows up only five times - but the rest of the data seems very accurate for the names I recognize) P.S. - being curious: A quick analysis of http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html, counting terms by number of IETF meetings since that's how they're represented there, results in the following answers for the IESG. The IAB history page isn't as easy to analyze in the same way but someone certainly could do so. what are the max terms for the IESG and IAB in their history? 31 IETF meetings what are the average terms for the IESG and IAB in their history? 10.2 IETF meetings what are the average and max terms of the current participants? max = 28, average = 7.8 (This average counts Mark and Brian as having served 0 IETFs, based on the data set - the average counting just the 11 continuing ADs is 9.1) Bill Raw data at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/terms.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Phillip and Joel, --On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 13:32 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room. As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work. I like the idea of considering incumbents on their own. But I can not find a way to make the two-phase system work without severe risk of backing ourselves into a corner. I did worry about that. But I agree with Phillip's comments below, although I would have stated some of them more positively. FWIW, there was an early version of this proposal that essentially permitted the nomcom to say too bad, not enough leadership depth in this area to continue it, we can't find a plausible candidate and the area is hereby shut down. I was convinced that was much too draconian but, frankly, if we get into a situation in which the Nomcom's only choice is put an AD back in whom they have already decided to retire, I'd like to see some other options considered. Those might include: * Dragging a former AD (one who has spent a few years back in the trenches) out of retirement for a really-short term appointment while the nomcom beats the bushes and twists arms. * Leaving a vacancy and asking the IESG to carefully consider whether the area is defined and organized properly given the shortage of leadership. * And probably some other things. As indicated in my longer note, my goal was to promote turnover and more circulation of ADs back into technical work, leadership, and mentoring at the WG level. If an area has a leadership shortage, that should be a stronger reason to get people with AD experience back on the front lines of where the work is being done and able to train or mentor others, rather than holding them on the IESG longer and making the situation worse. YMMD, of course, and the proposal could be easily changed to allow escapes that would permit recycling an AD who had been retired in the first round if the community really thought that was desirable. But I'd argue that it is not. More below. Given the '2 terms' limitation described I think that it is not very likely that this would occur. A NOMCON is not very likely to be considering replacing an AD unless their first term gave a very very good reason to do so. The AD has in effect had to screw up in a pretty major way that is not attributed to being new to the job within their first 18 months. The most likely way that would happen is if they were not doing the job. Exactly. After one term, there isn't going to be an issue unless there has been a major screwup, probably more than one with no signs of learning. After two terms, the incumbent is presumed to be out and therefore part of the job --during the second term if not the first-- is to be sure that there will be good candidates. If there are no plausible successors, I'd expect the incumbent and the IESG to deal with that. Dealing with it would presumably start by reconsidering the viability of the area, long before any of this gets to the Nomcom.The intent is to permit a third term in exceptional circumstances, but to create a really strong bias against those exceptional circumstances being can't find anyone else. The other advantage of the 2 terms limitation not mentioned so far is that it makes it much more attractive to an employer to have someone become an AD if they know that it is a fixed term commitment than if it is open ended. I can see a real advantage in terms of career development to having a member of my group serve a four year term. An eight year term for a single individual is a rather different matter. I would much rather have two (even three) individuals serve four year terms than have one effectively committed for a life sentence. Exactly. See the jury duty comments in my long note about motivation. The change also improves accountability. I think a lot of the problems caused during the 'old boys network' period were due to the perception that the members of the IESG had been permanently promoted to a higher status and that this represented the culmination of their IETF career. The four year time limit means that an AD who e.g. makes unilateral decisions that override WG consensus in unfair ways will eventually be called to account when they return to ordinary status. I'm not sure, and I want to focus more on ways to encourage the behavior the community wants rather than on how to punish the behavior it doesn't. The above doesn't really work as an accountability formula because, in principle, someone could systematically misbehave as an AD and then exit the IETF entirely at end of term. For that situation, only recalls are likely to work, and this doesn't change the recall mechanism. However, my personal theory is
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
At 06:56 PM 7/27/2005 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: Phillip and Joel, --On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 13:32 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see some other options considered. 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. As indicated in my longer note, my goal was to promote turnover and more circulation of ADs back into technical work, leadership, and mentoring at the WG level. I think the above suggestion does this without leaving the IESG with a less than desirable candidate. cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
James, Now I'm going to need to be a little cynical... --On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 18:44 -0500 James M. Polk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
John 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 rally 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: James, Now I'm going to need to be a little cynical... --On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 18:44 -0500 James M. Polk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. best, john cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
This draft (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt) does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership continuity and next-generation leadership development. I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I could be wrong). The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing. If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very soon (at least two months before the Third IETF). So, I'm wondering... If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Spencer, At 03:18 PM 07/26/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote: This draft (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt ) does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership continuity and next-generation leadership development. I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I could be wrong). I too like this draft and agree that having most IESG members serve for two terms is ideal and making it more the exception that people serve for three or four terms. I also like the flexibility it gives the NOMCOM without creating strict term limits. I think the IETF community is well served by having more people cycle in and out of the IESG. It serves the IESG by having ADs who have more recent experience in working groups and it serves the working groups by having some of our best technical people back in the working groups. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
Spencer Let me add my agreement to this ID as a good idea with balance. At 05:18 PM 7/26/2005 -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote: This draft (available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt) does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership continuity and next-generation leadership development. I would like to see this ID become one form of guidance for the next NOMCOM (as Spencer offers below), acknowledging this effort has not reached community consensus to date. If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very soon (at least two months before the Third IETF). So, I'm wondering... If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf cheers, James *** Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
I too like this draft and agree that having most IESG members serve for two terms is ideal and making it more the exception that people serve for three or four terms. I also like the flexibility it gives the NOMCOM without creating strict term limits. When someone is needed for more than two terms, what does that say about the state of their area? The IETF is based on the commitment of community participation, rather than the brilliance of individual leadership. If we do not have multiple, acceptable choices for an AD slot, then we have a deeper problem with the Area (and/or with the job of being AD, of course.) What would happen if the term limit were firm, with no exceptions? d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
