Re: term for 3rd RTG AD

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 December 2014 16:51 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 4A40A1A038D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:51:05 -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 AtMynhjZdk0M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F711A038A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DEE20012; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:55:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B047A637FE; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:50:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8DF637F4; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:50:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: term for 3rd RTG AD
In-Reply-To: <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> <142A75F8-8C58-429B-8D1D-D5AE0B8195E2@gmail.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: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:50:59 -0500
Message-ID: <22484.1419958259@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/C-PoRp2EklHoz7eqPT_-WrPgHb8
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 16:51:05 -0000

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> 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.

My personal preference, btw, is to put someone in place for 3 years.

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