On 1/7/15 10:10 AM, Allison Mankin wrote: > 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. 3 years means a second term is a total of six, I can say with some certainty that six year is a lot time to commit to being an AD. > Allison > > On 29 December 2014 at 18:09, Michael Richardson > <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx <mailto: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 > <mailto:mcr%2BIETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature