Re: Proposed IESG structure change

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/10/2014 02:59 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> At 07:31 PM 10/9/2014, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> On 10/9/14 3:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
....
>>
>> 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'm going to read the whole thread before I comment on the current
situation, but we have done an one-year appointment at least once.

In 1998, I was appointed AD for the O&M area for a period of 1 year.
This was a special situation, because:

a) Both O&M ADs were resigning at the same time, so we needed to do
either 1+2 or 3+2
b) I was already on the IESG (switch from apps), so learning curve was
percieved to be shorter
c) I expressly did not want to change my intention of departing the IESG
after 4 years

The only lesson worth noting here is that we have a tradition of doing
what makes sense.








[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]