Subject: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:18:05 -0500

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:58:05 -0700

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:40:31 -0500

Spencer

Let me add my agreement to this ID as a good idea with balance.

>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...
>

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:19:38 -0700

> 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/

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:42:59 -0500

>> 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.
>
> 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.)
>

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:08:10 -0400

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:
>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".
>
>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
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:13:13 +0200

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:
> four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the 
> leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable 
> service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing.
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:35:13 +0200

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

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:06:58 -0400

Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> 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-masked]>

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:42:22 -0400

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:12:47 -0400

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

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:35:42 -0400

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?

---

From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:52:50 -0400

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-masked]
============================================================================

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:09:43 -0400

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.)

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:23:50 -0400

>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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:56:56 -0500

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)