At 01:32 PM 1/7/2015, joel jaeggli wrote: >> 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. Wait... what? Unless I'm misreading things, there was no proposal for 3rd AD to always be a 3 year term. I thought the comments were solely around how to accomplish the "1/2 the IESG gets reviewed each cycle" meme. I can see how you might read it otherwise, but I hope no one else is contemplating this. Here's where I'd go: 1) New ADs get a two year term (unless being selected to fill a vacancy then those rules apply). 2) A returning AD MAY get a three year term if the Nomcom chooses to rebalance the number of positions filled each Nomcom term. 3) No AD may serve more than one three year term during their incumbency. All of this irrespective of the current discussions with respect to the 3rd routing AD. Mike