> On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. I think the most “spirit of the law” approach is not that “half the IESG” gets evaluated, but that the term be two years, so that an AD gets evaluated in “half the years”. If RTG has three ADs long-term, then there will be years with two of them getting evaluated. Yoav