On 30/12/2014 12:09, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> 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.
Actually the text in 3777 is a bit more subtle:
" 3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
selected to be reviewed each year.
The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
It is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require
the nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of
the current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized
prior to this process and created new positions, if there are an
odd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly
resigns."
Since there are currently 15 IESG positions, we can't literally
review exactly half anyway (which is a bug in the current text,
and I haven't checked the bis text).
Brian