Re: term for 3rd RTG AD

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 1/7/15 10:10 AM, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Michael,
>
> 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.
> Allison
>
> On 29 December 2014 at 18:09, Michael Richardson
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     John Leslie <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
>
>     --
>     Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Sandelman Software Works
>      -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>