RE: term for 3rd RTG AD

Michael StJohns <> Wed, 07 January 2015 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE461A00E2 for <>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:13:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.386
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.386 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, 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 fH2C3PyEtREe for <>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 136FB1A017D for <>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:08:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id d68b1p0042D5gil0168bvl; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:08:35 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id d68Z1p00B3Em2Kp0168Zwp; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:08:35 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:08:51 -0500
To:, 'Brian E Carpenter' <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: RE: term for 3rd RTG AD
In-Reply-To: <026801d0240c$c0f12120$42d36360$>
References: <> <> <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi> <> <> <026801d0240c$c0f12120$42d36360$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1420654115; bh=SWLw3YtovQK0+LOhea0X0j2b0QbjMUlADNqvyoKsMcs=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=wi4ArXfbQA9400Uk6bSltY2olY8UTrYfnl9b9B0vysI6xKzubvNb+tqeFv6t0yTH9 6Ahag+XTS86SF5242lAyeZLLE6WMFFYWNYJ8eerWjyxCEfv6clnAR1PXI8okeIH4YI g3AOefUIX2bxlK8dPcE0zOPBpPKI5FX/iu53HngQTHMleFky8rScsT1sEaVE6puX3f tCI/HRCrs5vVgsNHhzXZnswDOA9+FZi2VKIkojgcbiTZ3DQGU9O1XoiY6hCxhvzoJC ICYxox7o99Wx28zUiD1Mwvl7wNiGTfI3ORpF9+9GvioYkR9VPXaouglc7Idjx5aeFS 23Cx89UaGSF0w==
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 18:13:29 -0000
Message-ID: <>

The intent of the intent of the rule is to ensure that we have at least one AD who has a year of experience for the area after we go through the Nomcom process.   That's done by making sure both ADs don't end up on the same replacement cycle.  With three ADs in the area, making sure you replace at most two of them in a cycle satisfies that intent.

The "replace half" stuff came in because we'd been twiddling the number of ADs (going from 1 to 2 in some cases, looking at going from 1 to 0 in one case) and the additions aligned. 

What I would suggest is that new ADs get a two year term. Period.   Once the organization of the areas shakes out a bit more, then we can talk about offering 3 year terms to known capable second term ADs to rebalance the cycle.  It may take a few years to get back to steady state, but there really is no downside AFAICT.

Later, Mike

At 03:43 AM 12/30/2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>In what way is...
>>       The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
>>       one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
>... a bug?
>7 or 8 out of 15 clearly fits "approximately".
>I'd say that 6 or 9 out of 15 is stretching "approximately" and is to be avoided where other circumstances allow, but it is not a disaster.