The intent of the intent of the rule is to ensure that we have at least one AD
who has a year of experience for the area after we go through the Nomcom
process. That's done by making sure both ADs don't end up on the same
replacement cycle. With three ADs in the area, making sure you replace at most
two of them in a cycle satisfies that intent.
The "replace half" stuff came in because we'd been twiddling the number of ADs
(going from 1 to 2 in some cases, looking at going from 1 to 0 in one case) and
the additions aligned.
What I would suggest is that new ADs get a two year term. Period. Once the
organization of the areas shakes out a bit more, then we can talk about
offering 3 year terms to known capable second term ADs to rebalance the cycle.
It may take a few years to get back to steady state, but there really is no
downside AFAICT.
Later, Mike
At 03:43 AM 12/30/2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Brian,
In what way is...
The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
... a bug?
7 or 8 out of 15 clearly fits "approximately".
I'd say that 6 or 9 out of 15 is stretching "approximately" and is to be
avoided where other circumstances allow, but it is not a disaster.
Adrian