On 1/7/15 10:10 AM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Michael,
I support a two year term for the extra Routing AD - that's a good
amount of time for getting good at the AD job, whereas one year is too
short, and three is (as others said) a lot of commitment, as well as
being a problem if the person loses interest or some such issue.
3 years means a second term is a total of six, I can say with some
certainty that six year is a lot time to commit to being an AD.
Allison
On 29 December 2014 at 18:09, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca <mailto:mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>>
wrote:
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net <mailto:john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>>
wrote:
> (Nonetheless, I support the IESG choosing to experiment
with three
> RTG ADs for one year.)
I hadn't thought yet as to the term and rotation by which the 3
RTG ADs would
get re-evaluated. RFC3777 (and bis) say that the terms shall be
such that
"half the IESG" gets evaluated each year.
(If the writeup explained that, I missed it)
As such, it would likely be best if the new RTG AD was a either 1
year or 3
year term simply so that it's opposite the IETF Chair term.
However, any
additional flipping around due to the new area would change that
anyway.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca
<mailto:mcr%2BIETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature