> On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So I interpret this to say... > > The NomCom will put forward three candidates. For this year, the NomCom will put forward one candidate for a one year term, one candidate for a two year team, and one candidate for a three year term. > > Next year’s NomCom will have one slot to fill. > > Is that right? That is my reading of the draft. And my suggested clarification further explains that the three appointments by this year’s nomcom need not be completed by IETF 104, and if they are not then the appointees will serve a little less than 3, 2, and 1 years, respectively. That also would apply to the the other two initial appointments. Alissa > > Thanks. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 2, 2018, at 16:38, Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I’ve heard this there is a little confusion about the timeline for appointments if this document is approved soon and the current NomCom is asked to seat trustees, so I’d like to suggest the following clarification: >> >> OLD >> The terms of the appointed trustees from IETF NomCom shall be three years.. The initial selection shall be one, two, and three year terms in order to initially stagger the terms and thus miminize potential annual Trustee turnover. The other appointments by the IESG and the ISOC Board of Trustees shall be two year terms, with the initial terms being one and two years, respectively. >> >> NEW >> The terms of the appointed trustees from IETF NomCom shall be three years.. The initial selection shall be one, two, and three year terms in order to initially stagger the terms and thus miminize potential annual Trustee turnover. The other appointments by the IESG and the ISOC Board of Trustees shall be two year terms, with the initial terms being one and two years, respectively. The term lengths of initial appointees should be measured from the First IETF of the year in which they are seated even if they are appointed after the First IETF of the year. >> >> Alissa >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 2018, at 5:18 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity >>> 2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Update to the Selection >>> of Trustees for the IETF Trust' >>> <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-00.txt> as Best Current Practice >>> >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2018-10-05. Exceptionally, comments may be >>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of >>> the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> >>> This memo updates the selection of trustees for the IETF Trust. >>> Previously, the Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) >>> members also acted as trustees but the IAOC has been eliminated as >>> part of an update of the structure of the Internet Administrative >>> Support Activity (IASA). This memo specifies that the trustees shall >>> be selected separately. >>> >>> This memo updates RFCs 4071 and 4371 with regards to the selection of >>> trustees. All other aspects of the IETF Trust remain as they are >>> today. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The file can be obtained via >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update/ >>> >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update/ballot/ >>> >>> >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> iasa20 mailing list >> iasa20@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
