Michael,
I support a two year term for the extra Routing AD - that's a good amount of time for getting good at the AD job, whereas one year is too short, and three is (as others said) a lot of commitment, as well as being a problem if the person loses interest or some such issue.
Allison
On 29 December 2014 at 18:09, 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.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-