On 2/17/2016 9:54 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 09:53:22PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
The term lengths for the IAB and IESG would be variable to allow different
"entering classes" to serve on the IAOC. A member would expected to serve at
least two years and would be automatically reappointed to the IAOC for an
additional year if they are re-upped to the IAB or IESG and have served
less than two years.
I have nothing to say about the IESG case here, but why this rule for
the IAB? This is a new invention, because the IAB chair's _ex
officio_ position on the IAOC comes by virtue of being IAB chair, and
that appointment is for no more than one year-cycle (i.e. Spring
meeting to Spring meeting -- this year it'll turn out slightly longer
than one year). For all I know, the IAB will replace me in April with
someone else. (Indeed, some days I think that, were they sane, they'd
replace me that afternoon! That'd be less than a year.)
There's what's written down and then there's what actually happens.
According to the IAB history page, no IAB chair so far has served less
than 2 years as chair so I'm not all that worried about your scenario.
And there's a lot of pressure to have some stability in the IAB chair's
position, which translates into similar stability in the IAOC IAB
position. If you want to change who serves on the IAOC from the IAB,
then we need to have a rule with respect to that appointment that gives
us a similar result to what's already been happening. E.g. someone
from the IAB on the IAOC who will be around for ideally for a few years.
replacements. But, if you change the model, then you have to figure out how
to give the IAOC *at least* the same level of stability that it currently
has in membership terms.
But you're making it greater than it is now.
You make that sound like its a bad thing?
Seriously though, as I noted above, I'm not really making it greater -
I'm just trying to come up with an approach that preserves the current
*actual* stability.
Later, Mike
Best regards,
A