Subject: CONSENSUS: should there be term limits?

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:00:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

I believe the consensus for the question of whether or not there should
be term limits is:

    there should not be term limits.

It is clear that Todd Glassey disagrees but while I think there are
others who will agree there might be concerns no one else who has spoken
believes that term limits are the answer.

It was also asked if we could get data regarding the number of nominees
that have been considered.  Strictly speaking our existing rules do not
permit this since the list of nominees is explicitly confidential.

So, there are no changes to make to the existing procedures with respect
to this issue.

This discussion is closed.

If you disagree with the determined consensus please reply to this
message on the list.

Jim

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:03:19 +0700

Date:        Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:00:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I believe the consensus for the question of whether or not there should
  | be term limits is:
  | 
  |     there should not be term limits.

  | This discussion is closed.
  | 
  | If you disagree with the determined consensus please reply to this
  | message on the list.

I think you have leapt to the conclusion that will eventually be
reached (and which I happen to agree with), but I think you leapt
far too quickly.

Deciding consensus on the basis of less than 3 days discussion
(your original message with the Subject was Thu Mar 14, 21:27 -0500,
your "consensus reached" was Sun Mar 17, 17:00 -0500) is just way
too quick, in any circumstances.

When those three days are the three days immediately preceding an IETF
meeting (and 2 of them are a weekend), when many people could be expected
to be travelling, this leaping is really just too much.

If this process is every going to achieve anything that anyone would
even consider as half way reasonable, it needs to at least pretend to
observe some kind of open discussion.

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:19:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

Robert, certainly I agree with you in principle and share your concern.
I would like to make three observations, however.

1. The issue of term limits has come up with every revision of the
   NOMCOM document.  Even a cursory inspection of the archive will
   validate this.  While there may have been only "3 days" of discussion
   this time it is my opinion (with which you can disagree) there has
   been no new information put forward.

2. Practically speaking I don't have an effective way to halt discussion
   on a mailing list (and I'm setting aside the obvious technical
   mechanisms).  In fact, I regard this as a feature of mailing lists
   and it's one of the two principal reason I felt that POISSON should
   never have face-to-face meetings, i.e., in a face-to-face meeting at
   an IETF you have to cut people off because there is a time limit.
   (The other reason is that the IETF is an engineering group and
   process discussions really shouldn't compete with the mission of the
   IETF.)

3. The *assertion* of consensus is a way to get those who agree with it
   to realize they do not have to feel compelled to respond to future
   messages.  This allows the additional messages from those who
   disagree to "stand out" and I'd like to think that gives everyone a
   better chance to review the "other side".  Maybe the "other side"
   will swing some opinions who will then also respond and then
   consensus will fail.

Jim

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:15:20 -0800

jim - i strongly object to declaring consensus on this issue. a number of us are waiting for the current ietf meeting to conclude and have a cooling-off period before raising the issue.

i will be making a strong argument for the introduction of term limits; however, given the large number of rumors and innuendo being circulated now, with respect to the current nomcom, i felt it unproductive to raise it now. however, i am forced to surface the issue now by virtue of your note.

please be sensitive to the "hard feelings" that are presently circulating and do not close down discussion at this point.

thanks,

/mtr

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:01:48 -0500

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 10:15:20AM -0800, Marshall Rose wrote:
> i will be making a strong argument for the introduction of term limits

Where and when?  Some of us still think it's a useless idea.

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:57:47 -0800

> Where and when?  Some of us still think it's a useless idea.

to rephrase from my previous note: right now, tensions seem to be running high with some folks. having been uninvolved with nomcom this time, i don't know why.

i would prefer to wait a couple of weeks for people to cool down before floating a proposal. i would have kept my mouth shut now, except that jim said "discussion's over", and i don't think it should be, because i haven't had a chance to pitch my proposal.

tell 'ya what: how about april 5th? that's about two weeks...

ok?

/mtr

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:08:36 +0700

Date:        Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:19:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 1. While there may have been only "3 days" of discussion
  |    this time it is my opinion (with which you can disagree) there has
  |    been no new information put forward.

I don't think that's relevant.  Perhaps the question should never have
been raised, but once it has been, it really needs adequate time for
discussion.

  | 2. Practically speaking I don't have an effective way to halt discussion
  |    on a mailing list

No (or rather, you do, on one, but that doesn't matter) but just saying
"consensus achieved, discussion closed" is enough to cause some people
to decide "oh well, too late, I missed the opportunity".  It might not
work like that for you (nor for me), but there are people who will simply
fade away if they feel they missed the deadline.

  | 3. The *assertion* of consensus is a way to get those who agree with it
  |    to realize they do not have to feel compelled to respond to future
  |    messages.

That doesn't work, and is extremely poor management style.   The
"deliberately create a conflict to make people angry" style (which is
what this really is) just raises tempers.   On a list, it is even worse,
as there's no way for people to (more or less silently) indicate which
side they mostly agree with, which you can have in face to face meetings
(the occasional applause, boos, people nodding, ...).

The more common rule with lists is that if you agree with what has been
said, just say nothing.  So, if everyone who agreed with the assertion
simply kept quiet into the future (as you suggest they can), so all
you received were negative comments, the only real reasonable conclusion
from list traffic is that everyone agrees with the (recent) messages
(as no-one is dissenting).

Because of that, people who disagree have to respond anyway.  The most
you can achieve by declaring a result early is that some of the excess
"I also don't agree with X" messages can be eliminated (they were never
needed anyway, and people should ideally learn that merely agreeing,
with anyone, in this form of communication, helps no-one).

In the future, please wait till there has been adequate discussion time,
and then declare consensus, only if there really seems to be a consensus
(rough consensus).

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:26:48 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

I have received several requests to keep the term limit discussion
open.  A specific suggestion I received was that if the consensus really
is for there to be no term limits the document should in fact say this,
as opposed to being silent on the issue.  Since this requires changes to
the document we will need to consider those changes.

So, the issue is still on the agenda.  I will post an updated agenda as
soon after the IETF as I can and we can move forward from there.

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:37:49 -0500

>     there should not be term limits.

If this ends up being the consensus, I would request that revised
document not be silent on this point, but there be an explicit note
that it is the sense of the community that there should not be term
limits, and that the primary criteria to be used by the nomcom is
whether or not the incumbent is continueing to do a good job.  If an
incumbent has become ossified, and is doing a bad job --- then sure,
remove him.  

The reason why I think this should be stated, and not left unsaid, is
that if it truely is a sense of the community that there should be no
term limits, then explicitly stating it will help prevent nomcom
members who have their own private beliefs from reopening this
discussion every year in a closed forum.   

A related problem is that the nomcom members do not necessarily
represent the community, because while they are randomly selected, it
is a random selection from a self-selected pool.  (I believe that how
we pick nomcom members should be changed, but I'll save that proposal
for a different thread.)

Hence, I believe it would be useful for RFC 2727 to have some guidance
to nomcom members from the community about what criteria should be
used.  Of course, nomcom members are always free to vote their own
conscience, but having guidance is useful, and avoids a problem where
currently, sitting IAB/IESG members have no idea what criteria will be
used to judge them --- RFC 2727 is entirely silent on this point, and
how they will be judged is completely dependent on the private views
of ten randomly selected people out of a self-selected subsample of
the community.

Personally, I would actually go further, and say that I believe there
should be a presumption in favor of an incumbent, since it takes time
to learn how to become an effective AD.  In particular, I believe that
nomcoms should be advised that removing a sitting IETF chair in
particular should not be done lightly.  Finding someone who fill that
job well is extraordinarily difficult.  People like Fred or Herald
don't come along frequently, and filling their shoes would be
difficult indeed.

						- Ted

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:30:00 -0800

> incumbent has become ossified, and is doing a bad job --- then sure,

the current words are subtle, but i think a bit better

from 2727 2(1)

   (1)  The principal functions of the nominating committee are to
        review the open IESG and IAB positions and to either nominate
        its incumbent or recruit a superior candidate.
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
randy

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:23:16 +1100

>        its incumbent or recruit a superior candidate.

These words encompass all that I have heard regarding incumbents and issue of term limits. The essential message of this section is the concept of regular peer review and comparison to the current needs of the position to the attributes of the incumbent. If there are individual(s) who, at the time, can offer superior capabilities then this section is clear - pick them and use their  skills. If not, then continue to use the skills of the incumbent on the basis that the Nomcom can find noone better.