The intent of the intent of the rule is to ensure that we have at least one AD who has a year of experience for the area after we go through the Nomcom process. That's done by making sure both ADs don't end up on the same replacement cycle. With three ADs in the area, making sure you replace at most two of them in a cycle satisfies that intent. The "replace half" stuff came in because we'd been twiddling the number of ADs (going from 1 to 2 in some cases, looking at going from 1 to 0 in one case) and the additions aligned. What I would suggest is that new ADs get a two year term. Period. Once the organization of the areas shakes out a bit more, then we can talk about offering 3 year terms to known capable second term ADs to rebalance the cycle. It may take a few years to get back to steady state, but there really is no downside AFAICT. Later, Mike At 03:43 AM 12/30/2014, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Brian, > >In what way is... >> The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately >> one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year. >... a bug? > >7 or 8 out of 15 clearly fits "approximately". >I'd say that 6 or 9 out of 15 is stretching "approximately" and is to be avoided where other circumstances allow, but it is not a disaster. > >Adrian