Re: term for 3rd RTG AD

Michael StJohns <> Wed, 07 January 2015 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867E71A1A2E for <>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:28:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.513
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_MID=0.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GN1VyJf70Bu2 for <>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D8E1A01AE for <>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id d7U71p0022VvR6D017UM7k; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:28:21 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id d7UL1p0013Em2Kp017ULNi; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:28:21 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:28:38 -0500
To: joel jaeggli <>, Allison Mankin <>, Michael Richardson <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: term for 3rd RTG AD
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1420658901; bh=yTSCD6Z0NdPrugT1ouAdrpt3LwxpotXrObZ5v+W5RlM=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=rc5gWWIO3aEFZcGkzE7yiskVvwzz8c2U22OTx5vCaGuQTHpUhhbaMkRJaRDzZkHhI pH7Z/ZHuU+YYAeQhlQAw5A/aJH2XyHFZlyyxJN0zmFwy/dZwd/geX+6tJCoPQxFeCu SdDIWhTV0UpgvN8kpFY8IRLMIt3Pz7Va1/6skQmDqZFZd5w61lT0tf83u6eOAD383Q cnu2vA6PmZoYuSzZm7wZvGG4JjSkLjntUF3ODne+aRZh0wH/BSi3NdGi/54o4J+6gL T+XCFnLZlI6MqlGY8xy38zMxOPJD+lO9/lZQ/dlr9ZEW6k8E5YmkJWo59yXZcVWjvl gjYdA272qnIKA==
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:28:23 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 01:32 PM 1/7/2015, joel jaeggli 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.

Wait... what?   

Unless I'm misreading things, there was no proposal for 3rd AD to always be a 3 year term.  I thought the comments were solely around how to accomplish the "1/2 the IESG gets reviewed each cycle" meme.

I can see how you might read it otherwise, but I hope no one else is contemplating this.

Here's where I'd go:

1) New ADs get a two year term (unless being selected to fill a vacancy then those rules apply).
2) A returning AD MAY get a three year term if the Nomcom chooses to rebalance the number of positions filled each Nomcom term.
3) No AD may serve more than one three year term during their incumbency.

All of this irrespective of the current discussions with respect to the 3rd routing AD.