ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: term for 3rd RTG AD

2015-01-07 13:32:33
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 =-






Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>