At 10:43 PM 10/9/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >On 10/10/2014 13:59, Michael StJohns wrote: >... >>> I think MR's correct here: 3777 3.4 says, >>> >>> The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and >>> IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of >>> one-half of the members each year. >>> >>> If a new AD position is created, I think doing a 3 year appointment is most consonant with 3777 3.4, but I don't think 1 year is forbidden. >> >> You need to read it all. Regular candidates serve a 2 or 3 year appointment. Mid-term vacancy fillers serve between 1 to three years depending on when the vacancy occurs. AFAIK we've never made a normal vacancy 1 year appointment. And I think its been a while since we've had a 3 year term appointment. > >I very much hope we can still apply common sense (with a rough consensus) when >we encounter a case that doesn't fit the letter of the rules. Yup. The answer above was in response to "what does 3777 mean" more or less. *laugh* As an aside, I was about to comment on the differences between the UK's mostly unwritten constitution and the US's written one with respect to the IETF's approach. We made a decision a while back to become an international standards organizations and that imposed some conditions of regular behavior and rule following based on written rules. As I general matter, I agree with you about flexibility but I'm loath to apply the "rough consensus" approach to exception handling unless absolutely necessary. My personal opinion is that the reasons given don't rise anywhere near "absolutely necessary". Mike >'"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically >in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot."' (Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, 1838) > > Brian