Subject: SUMMARY: should there be term limits?

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:25:21 -0500 (EST)

SPEAKING AS EDITOR:

There has been some additional discussion on this point which suggested
that we need to document explicitly whether or not there are term
limits.

I am no longer certain there is an absolute majority in favor of either
point of view on the question of term limits.  The current document
clearly infers that an incumbent is to be favored unless a superior
candidate can be identified.  The argument in favor of term limits is
that the longer an incumbent serves the harder it is for a NOMCOM to
choose to replace them, in addition to the more general desire to get
"fresh blood" in the leadership.  The argument against term limits is
that it can be very difficult to find replacement candidates and if you
have someone willing and able to serve we should let them continue to do
so.

In "deadlock" situation I would propose we not change the existing
implicit rule as follows:

    PROPOSED CONSENSUS: There should be no term limits and we should
    document this explicitly.

If you disagree with the PROPOSED CONSENSUS please reply to the list.
If you agree do nothing.  Note that a future message will propose actual
and specific textual changes to the document.

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:25:00 -0800

> If you disagree with the PROPOSED CONSENSUS please reply to the list.

i think the document as it stands is fine.  documents which try to
enumerate all the things they do not say are silly.

and a nomcom may feel that the length of time an incumbent has served
is part of what should be considered when deciding what is 'superior'.
unnecessary explicit words could be used against such a position in
nomcom internal discussion.

randy

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:08:33 -0800

i apologize for the length of this note.
    
    a few folks seem to be suggesting lots of changes to a system that
    seems to work pretty well.
    
    the fact that the current system doesn't please them, doesn't bother
    me one bit.
    
    in fact, i think that the current system doesn't entirely please
    anyone, but that the vast majority of us can live with it. that
    tells me it's close to optimal.
    
    the purpose of this lengthy note is two-fold: i'm going to try to
    movtivate folks not to change a damn thing; then, i'm going to ask
    for a change.
    
    at the end, if the decision is that it's better not to screw around
    with things, i'm happy to withdraw my proposal.
    
    i urge you to read the following carefully. while it's not as clever
    as i like, i hope you will find it convincing...    
    
    many thanks,
    
    /mtr
    
				  #######
    
the current system
    
    the existing system isn't perfect, but i claim that it more or less
    works just fine. further, i'll claim that many "improvements"
    suggested thus far either fix non-problems or cause worse problems
    than the ones they solve.
    
    the thing to understand about the existing system is that there are
    lots of checks-and-balances to promote things like continuity,
    evolution, stability, innovation, candor, and privacy. although in
    conflict, all of these serve the good of the community.
    
    in terms of continuity v. evolution: only half of the positions are
    up for consideration each year. hence, presumptive arguments for
    incumbants are, on their face, irrelevant. the existing system gives
    the nomcom considerable flexibility to put someone new in, simply
    because there's still someone experienced in the role.
    
    in other words, the downside of change is pretty much minimized.
    more important though, it gives the community the ability to grow
    mid-level people into senior people. in an earlier note, ted
    argued against term limits because people like fred and harold are
    far and few between. what was left unsaid is that good people don't
    just appear at random, instead they have to be "groomed" by being
    given the opportunity to do things. the existing system does just
    that. by bringing in new people, you pair them with a more senior
    person, and this gives them the opportunity to grow professionally.
    
    in terms of stablity v. innovation: the nomcom doesn't operate in a
    vacuum, there are four ex-officio participants who can provide
    considerable guidance. so, even if every voting member of the nomcom
    is absolutely clueless, the ex-officio's should be able to moderate
    their decision processes. further, if any of the ex-officio's
    generate too much noise, then the others should be able to deal with
    that.
    
    all systems, including the current one, are going to get complaints
    about being gamed, spun, or perverted. it's all part of the mix of
    having competing interests. what the current systems does is provide
    numerous feedback loops to minimize this behavior. besides the four
    ex-officio's, you also have the confirming body to provide push
    back. can the voting members ignore all this? yes. will they? it
    depends on how strongly they feel about the choices that are
    available to them. the point here is that there are multiple stages
    of review and comment along the way.

    some have argued that when the confirming body rejects a candidate,
    then this should be treated as the final say on the matter. this
    perspective isn't consistent with the philosophy of checks and
    balances. if the confirming body rejects someone, the nomcom should
    be free to re-think their choice, and, if they feel strongly about
    it, then to submit the name again. if this leads to a deadlock, then
    the position doesn't get filled -- and frankly, i think that's just
    fine. if both sides feel so strongly on the issue that they can't
    agree, then the position should go unfilled until they can
    agree. and if that means the position goes unfilled for a year, i
    applaud them both for acting on the strength of their
    convictions. (of course, we all know that it's unlikely to go on for
    a year. maybe a month or two. and if it is an entire year, that's
    okay, the iesg and iab have operated at less than full strength
    before.)
    
    i claim that to give the confirming body an absolute no, effectively
    allows the confirming body to ignore the nomcom entirely. the
    confirming body has veto power right now, it does have, nor should
    it have droit de seigneur.
    
    in terms of candor v. privacy: i'll be honest, the original model i
    had for nomcom confidentiality was that an outsider shouldn't even
    be able to tell if an existing officer put their name back in the
    hat for re-consideration. given the widespread reports of rumors,
    counter-rumors, misinformation, disinformation, etc., from the
    current cycle, i was hopelessly naive and am now deeply
    saddened. perhaps i expect too much from people.
    
    however, i think that candor is important because if someone is
    doing a lousy job, i want someone to be able to tell this to the
    nomcom, without worrying that this will get out'd and, a week later,
    they might end up with that very special someone as their new
    boss. further, because you have the four ex-officio's there, any
    comment that is seriously twisted will get debunked fairly
    easily. again, more feedback loops to stop nonsense.
    
    to sum up: we have managed to survive 9 generations of nomcoms
    without having to hire ted olsen or david boies. this is probably a
    good thing.

a proposal
    
    one of the thing that surprises me about the way the nomcom works 
    is how little turnover we get on the iesg. i'm not saying this as a
    criticism of the incumbancy, but rather as a concern that if the
    iesg gets run over a by a bus, we're in a lot of trouble. the whole
    point of putting half the positions up for consideration each year
    is to be able to rotate mid-level folks in to give them an
    opportunity to become senior folks.
    
    of course, there are a lot of reasons why it may be necessary to
    select the incumbant, fine. however, i suspect that a lack of
    history between each generation of the nomcom is causing this
    behavior. (of course, replacing the nomcom each year is a good
    thing; it's just another one of those pesky trade-offs...)
    
    so, here's my proposal: 
    
    1. a member of the iesg or iab must not serve for more than six
       years without taking a break; and,
    
    2. a break must last at least two years before that person can be
       considered for the same body.
    
    i call this the "fred baker precedent", because fred served for six
    years as the chair of the ietf and then went to the iab. (maybe he
    took a break in between, i'm not sure.)
    
    so, what this means is that once you get put on the iesg, you can be
    there for at most six years. after that, you can be selected to go
    onto the iab, but you can't come back to the iesg for at least two
    years.
    
    so, if someone is a superstar and their six years is up, and if the
    nomcom feels that person should still be providing service to the
    community, they can select them for the other body.
    
    i suggest that the at-most-6/at-least-2 rule counteracts the lack of
    history between generations of the nomcom, whilst not penalizing
    people who do good things.
    
    your comments are solicited.
    
/mtr

				  #######

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:54:00 -0500

I do not consider that the 6 year suggestion is a useful value.  As far as 
I can tell, in this regard (limiting terms / introducing turnover) the 
nominating committees have generally achieved a reasonable level (offending 
some people one way or the other most years.)

However, I think the fact that the approval bodies have no practical way to 
say no at all (they currently can not in practice produce the stalemate 
Marshall suggests) is a bad thing.  We have the review there for a 
reason.  One person objected to a stronger review saying roughly ~don't we 
trust the nomcom?~  The nomcom is a randomly selected set of people.  As 
such, they are people, and can make mistakes.  A legitimate review of their 
result is helpful to the community, not a criticism of their work.
In practice, currently, when a review body says "we think you made a 
mistake" the interactions of various forces (including and possibly 
principally human nature) mean that the nomcom is extremely unlikely to 
change its stance after "getting more input".

Claiming "we survived 9 tries, therefore it works" seems a bit odd.  The 
IETF can survive a lot of things.  However, it is also worth looking at 
ways to improve the situation.  Yes, gratuitous change is 
dangerous.  However stagnation, particularly when it is difficult to 
determine problems, is also dangerous.
Hence, I come to exactly the opposite conclusions from Marshall:
I think that term limits are actually a bad idea.
Some of the other proposed changes, like more empowered negatives from the 
review body, are probably a good idea.  I know this community does not like 
empowering its leadership.  But a bit of leadership can be helpful.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:08 PM 3/29/02 -0800, Marshall Rose wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:38:33 -0800

Joel and all,

  Joel you make a very well reasoned but flawed argument IMHO.
(See more below)

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> such, they are people, and can make mistakes.

  But are the mistakes that are made corrected, in and expedient manner?

>  A legitimate review of their

  Constructive criticism is always useful and usually helpful...
Milk toast reviews are many times glossed over or just
ignored...

> change its stance after "getting more input".

  Here is where the fallacy of not having term limits.  It is more likely as
history has shown, that after a time, incumbents begin to get stale
or so set in their positions that meaningful change that is both healthy
and constructive is prevented as a result...

> dangerous.

  Gratuitous change is not always dangerous.  It sometimes is needed
and healthy...

>  However stagnation, particularly when it is difficult to

  Indeed true.

> I think that term limits are actually a bad idea.

  However your premise of your argument does not lead one to
your conclusion.

> empowering its leadership.  But a bit of leadership can be helpful.

  Good leadership always necessarily follows the community's needs, desires,
and sees to it that they are incorporated and implemented.

> >     your comments are solicited.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:05:30 -0800

> some people one way or the other most years.)

ok, where are the statistics to back this up? 

again, keeping in mind that i am not criticizing the incumbancy, i think you will be hard pressed to find any instance where more than 2 ADs didn't return....

if this fits your definition of reasonable, then i guess we have no argument, other than we disagree on the meaning of the word "reasonable".

> change its stance after "getting more input".

however, as pointed out in my note, there are numerous feedback loops to moderate the behavior of a nomcom. if the confirming body wants to reject the result, they're free to do so, and -- here's the important part -- the current system forces them to coherently explain what the problem is.

if they are persuasive, or if the nomcom isn't all that invested in a particular choice, you get a reset. 

> empowering its leadership.  But a bit of leadership can be helpful.

we obviously use different values for the terms "leadership" and "empower". right now, there is a balance. the confirming body can say no. the nomcom can try again with someone else or try again with the same name. if an impasse is reached, i find it presumptious to a priori assume that the confirming body is right and the nomcom is wrong.

if both organizations have the courage of their convictions than they should stick to their guns. in the worst case, which we've never seen (and i think is rather unlikely), the iab or iesg is understaffed for a year. i don't think that's an unusual thing.

in other words, there is no upside to changing the current balance, but there certainly is a downside in that it pretty much allows the confirming body to dictate a slate to the nomcom, without even explaining why. i'll pass on that little slice of hell...

/mtr

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:15:13 +0700

Date:        Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:05:30 -0800
    From:        Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  
		 <[email-masked]>

  | i think you will be hard pressed to find any instance where more than 2 ADs
  | didn't return....
  | 
  | if this fits your definition of reasonable, then i guess we have no
  | argument, other than we disagree on the meaning of the word "reasonable".

But that's more or less exactly what you're suggesting (based upon the
IESG of the size it has been over the period).   12 IESG members (approx)
with a 6 year term, that means 2 of them would be replaced every nomcom.
Occasionally more than that, but once you set a term limit, you remove much
of the incentive to remove someone before their limit is reached, unless
they are truly hopeless - that is, a nomcom can just say to itself,
"well, X's term will be up next time anyway, we may as well reappoint
this time, next time there won't be an issue".

I think I'd prefer the status quo, where the turnover rate seems to be
fairly close to what you're aiming to achieve anyway.

I certainly agree that encouraging people into leadership roles is
worth doing - I'd like to find a less prescriptive way to achieve that
however.

kre

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:20:12 -0500

--On Friday, 29 March, 2002 22:54 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> One person objected to a stronger review saying roughly ~don't
> we trust the nomcom?~  The nomcom is a randomly selected set
> of people.  As such, they are people, and can make mistakes.
> A legitimate review of their result is helpful to the
> community, not a criticism of their work.

I suggest that, if we are going to think clearly about this
problem, we need to change our vocabulary a bit.  Participation
in the nomcom involves a good deal of very intense work over a
short period of time.  Just as many who participate usefully in
the IETF are unwilling, or unable due to other commitments, to
volunteer to be WG chairs, or document editors, not everyone has
been willing to volunteer to be on the nomcom.  In addition, we
prohibit any sitting IAB or IESG member from volunteering, and
essentially prohibit anyone who thinks he or she might better
serve the IETF community by getting onto the IESG or IAB from
volunteering.  We also exclude anyone whose participation in the
IETF, however effective, is exclusively by email.  And, of
course, people have commented in the past (perhaps not entirely
in jest) that they have volunteered for the nomcom in the hope
of guaranteeing that they will get on it and hence cannot be
tapped for the IESG or IAB.  

That combination of exclusion factors substantially guarantees
us a pool of volunteers from which the nomcom is chosen that not
statistically representative of the IETF participant community.
And the random selection process from that pool is, again
statistically, quite unlikely to represent a random sample of
either the IETF participant community or the IETF contributor
community (however one might try to define that).

We might even go further and argue that, logically and
statistically, the pool of those who volunteer to serve on the
nomcom consists of:

	(i) People with an exceptional sense of service and
	responsibility to the community who are also unwilling
	to be considered for an IESG or IAB seat (or who
	believe, correctly or incorrectly, that they would never
	be considered).
	
	(ii) People with axes to grind that give them sufficient
	motivation to serve and do the work, whether for or
	against some individual or for or against some particular
	strategy of populating particular Areas or the IESG or
	IAB in general.
	
	(iii) People who have no clue as to what they are
	getting themselves into.

Note that I do not claim that the latter two categories have any
members: they might be empty, but the categories are logically
necessary from the reasoning above.

But the nomcom membership is a random sample of that pool, not
of the IETF.  That sample may be exactly the right group to make
the selections.  It may be better than any other option we can
come up with.  It may even be the wrong group for many purposes,
but the one we deserve.    But it is _not_ a random sample of
the IETF community, and we should not make arguments about
nomcom wisdom based solely on nomcom representativeness.

         john

So, the pool from which the Nomcom is

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:30:01 -0800

[ replying to john's two half-notes... ]

> necessary from the reasoning above.

john - i'm more of a pessimist than you, and i'm happy to stipulate that the above two sets are non-empty.

> One of those notes also suggested that my conclusion was not
> clear.  It has two parts:
> 
> (i) To the extent that "random sample of the IETF community and
> hence representative of it" would give the nomcom some special
> virtue or authority, it doesn't represent such a sample and
> hence does not have such virtue or authority as a result of that
> source/argument.

yes, i agree: it's random, not representative. and i wouldn't assign any virtue or vice to them other than to note that the ones that get to vote aren't currently officers.

> (ii) Even with a nomcom that was more representative, the value
> of checks and balances --including a serious and meaningful
> review and confirmation process-- seems clear.  I'm not sure
> whether such a process requires procedural changes or, as I
> think Marshall is effectively suggesting, just a bit more
> bravery on the part of the confirming bodies.

i wouldn't use the term "bravery", but you have the gist of it. if the nomcom feels strongly about something they should stick to it. if a confirming body feels strongly about something, they should stick to it.

ideally, there'd be no conflict. sometimes there is.

if there is a conflict, hopefully each side could convincingly explain to the other one why their position is reasonable. sometimes that doesn't happen.

if that's the case, it may take a few months (or upto a year) to resolve. i'd like to think that the iab and/or iesg can handle that. if not, there is potentially a much larger problem with our system of self-government...

/mtr

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:32:04 -0800

after a private conversation with joel, i've reached the conclusion that the at-most-6/at-least-2 term limit plan is effectively a no-op.

it may shape the curve a little differently, but it will have virtually no impact on the first 3 sigmas.

modifying the proposal, e.g., at-most-4/at-least-2, would probably cause some unfortunate feedback problems for future nomcoms.

accordingly, i withdraw support for the proposal!

so, while i am still concerned with what i perceive to be a lack of rotation, for the purpose of grooming senior personnel, i think that the best solution is no solution.

/mtr