On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:29:09AM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote: > There's what's written down and then there's what actually happens. Ok. > 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. Ok. > 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 This doesn't follow. Your argument is of the form, "We currently have a formal rule that the appointment is nominally for one year, with a possibility of it being shorter; but social pressure means that in practice it is more stable. Therefore, in the new system we need a formal rule that enforces that greater stability." The premises don't really support your argument. It'd be just as reasonable to conclude, "Therefore, there should be a social expectation that people be prepared to do this for two years or more." My experience of the IETF suggests that we are better off with more social conventions and fewer formal rules, because the formal rules all require exception handling, recovery rules, and so on; whereas when social conventions turn out not to work perfectly you can treat the case as the one-off that it usually is. > You make that sound like its a bad thing? Yes. See above. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx