Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 06:51:30 -0500

Brian-

> I think that's beside the point. Currently the NomCom is charged
> with finding the best person for each job. Whether thay have a
> choice of 2 or 10 valid candidates is not the point, although the
> answer tends to be nearer 2 I think. Not being able to pick the
> best candidate due to an arbitrary term limit would be simply
> self-inflicted injury.

Maybe I should have clearly indicated that I knew I was taking a
tangent here.  I agree that term limits are no good.  (Maybe I
should have changed the subject line...)

However, the number of available candidates says something about the
organization, I think.  The IETF has been growing.  If our
leadership pool has not, I think that indicates a problem.  Either
we're not grooming new people or our expectations are too high or we
are being overly conservative in choosing "known quantities" or ???.
Or, maybe things are just right.  My point is that instead of this
normal handwave of "there are not enough people who are qualified
and willing" it would be nice to see some data on that subject.
What's wrong with that?

allman

--
Mark Allman -- NASA GRC/BBN -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:36:19 +0100

Mark Allman wrote:
...
> My point is that instead of this

Nothing at all. However, in general I think the best candidates are
"relcuctantly willing" rather than "willing and eager".

    Brian

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:01:20 -0800

Mark -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Allman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

> > best candidate due to an arbitrary term limit would be simply

This is ludicrous, if the NomCom cant find enough qualified and available
candidates then the parent org needs to be reformed as well or shutdown and
its responsibilities reallocated or distributed.

> and willing" it would be nice to see some data on that subject.

becuase it will upset the apple cart.

It takes a long time to indoctrinate a person to the concept that the IETF
should stay as it is, and that it is a critical part of the Internet when
nothing could have been farther from the truth.

The IETF was started to be a International Open Framework standards org  for
the Internet only. It was felt that this would stimulate the core protocol
and social development processes to get the net to where it is today to some
extent.

The problem today is that the IETF is no longer codifying standards for the
Internet but for all networks.  its not the Internet, and now this scope of
reach is way more than the founders planned for. Its about commercial
culpability.

The current IETF is proffereing technologies and standards that shape and
determine which netwoking flavors are favored and which arent. The net of
this is that the IETF has become a mechanism for Standards Purveyors to
short circuit longer-more propriety constrained standards-processes set by
law, treaty, and charter by the IETF making its own the defacto fiat.