Re: term for 3rd RTG AD

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 08 January 2015 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9C91A87A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:00:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ZoPKkI2Bj7LH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1A81A879F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACD82009E; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:06:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 92427637FE; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:00:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACD263745; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:00:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: term for 3rd RTG AD
In-Reply-To: <54AD7BA1.80409@bogus.com>
References: <5614C286-0CD2-4DAD-A846-510EE38D1B9A@ietf.org> <549DB615.90408@gmail.com> <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi> <24548.1419894559@sandelman.ca> <CAP8yD=tWwm9FmgMLfQm4A9YtrPaXcqWe1hEMp=dVS3S-rtbfCA@mail.gmail.com> <54AD7BA1.80409@bogus.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 20:00:46 -0500
Message-ID: <8645.1420678846@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3lgP7EHtXOMd77JWWhJc3wZs8ow
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:00:50 -0000

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
    >> 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.

I was not originally suggesting that the terms for the RTG ADs be 3 years,
although that solves the problem of having two RTG ADs up some years.

I was suggesting that the *initial* term for the 3rd AD be 3 years.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-