Re: term for 3rd RTG AD

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 December 2014 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
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 578741A0073 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:29:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 JH7TlURdzAwh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C536E1A005E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:29:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so23888729wiv.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:29:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=COjzw5C6y/KanewX2N326egLe5yCgFBfn1N04c/PWDQ=; b=jM4ZjJqEfYL3o8D+5OLggPB1sjKiXqLGqOeJMn6IpFWAs07iLDOPBnAmLMPtEEJS3y +JYiuK3SRFFGlhl7YYcUnMOFCUbrOD9eBis1seGEGSvSJGhUA4N9Fn6gu4dls+EAEfQU nrX4GKInp2tIYUmP/gC2L2feaQkDMlVFYa6VuxRgTkr3Ka3mUCr8Ek66qr/4wsxKDYbx cULLyUGCbc2cd3XFf4c1XF60GfNc/Llr31Wjwbdv6D01U1e4G5dTTowqcJHIYyUI9PNk 2NLaNsRRIeu50+Ta6AQO2c0qjfXkNJjl+Q41hwA3M4/Hln7LmiUEGkT0isRSJEQ/0QeX U8Sg==
X-Received: by 10.194.78.204 with SMTP id d12mr120490292wjx.37.1419938981553; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.249.55] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b10sm43071873wiw.9.2014.12.30.03.29.39 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:29:40 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: term for 3rd RTG AD
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <24548.1419894559@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:29:38 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <142A75F8-8C58-429B-8D1D-D5AE0B8195E2@gmail.com>
References: <5614C286-0CD2-4DAD-A846-510EE38D1B9A@ietf.org> <549DB615.90408@gmail.com> <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi> <24548.1419894559@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5J3ICuyA4Q-MT3hiKseNSTScYmM
Cc: 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: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:29:46 -0000

> On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> John Leslie <john@jlc.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.

I think the most “spirit of the law” approach is not that “half the IESG” gets evaluated, but that the term be two years, so that an AD gets evaluated in “half the years”. 

If RTG has three ADs long-term, then there will be years with two of them getting evaluated.

Yoav