Re: I-D Action: draft-iab-ccg-appoint-process-00.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 25 November 2016 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB24129658 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:55:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dR1x147fRwOr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C771B129550 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C348112A7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:55:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b_9f_fvH5Sk6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:55:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (192-0-220-231.cpe.teksavvy.com [192.0.220.231]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E2ED10A27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:55:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 16:55:13 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-iab-ccg-appoint-process-00.txt
Message-ID: <20161125215513.GG68855@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <148009401131.22717.9124100512985996998.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <99a16936-f0c5-6add-cbff-95f0d3164cad@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <99a16936-f0c5-6add-cbff-95f0d3164cad@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0KHI0LxGtVM0dM9mY7xfTp1T_J4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 21:55:18 -0000

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:49:29AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Could you add something about the expectation being to arrange staggered
> terms, so that a simultaneous turnover of all three members can be avoided?
> This doesn't have to be a rule, just an intention.

The IAB's plan is to put that intention into its internal policies,
instead, on the grounds that it will be obvious to any competent IAB
that complete turnover is undesirable without tying a future IAB's
hands if something dramatic happens.  Is it enough that you know that?

A (for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com