(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 Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Ietf mailing list