RE: Thinking about adding another AD in the General(ish) area

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

At 10:12 AM -0800 10/30/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>the two cases that I wanted to avoid:
>
>- it turns out that the role is not needed because of where we end up. We need to remove it without a great fuss.
>- it turns out that it's the wrong person for the job. Same problem.
>
>I did not want to force this to be the "chair crown prince", but if it turns out that the person is right for the chair job, it could be.

I think we can do "General AD", slot two, by talking to the NomCom chair (though
I think we need to ask them to extend the nominations deadline if we do, since
it is two weeks from tomorrow now).  Having this be "Vice Chair" is a little
different, as I think it will look like "successor", especially if the current Chair
doesn't plan to re-up.  Making it a one year term increases this as a possibility
and the likely perception.

For the General AD slot,  I think having it be a 2 year term makes sense,
because that gives the continuity we're looking for in the event of the other
general AD not coming back.  If the NomCom moves the slot two person
into slot one (by making them IETF Chair), the NomCom can then appoint a person
for one year to fit slot two; then the crab crawl of years will work.

If we term limited the Chair role, having this be an explicit succession
might actually be a very good idea (and some organizations explicitly do
that by having a vice-chair rotate in to the Chair role after a set time), but
that requires a very different discussion with the community on term
limits.
			Regards,
				Ted Hardie


  



>It's possible that we could find the right person for the assistant chair job, and that person would like to *contine* being assistant, then the term should be lengthened.
>
>But we don't know what the state after a year is going to be, so my instinct is to commit for the shortest possible time.
>
>               Harald
>
>
>--On 30. oktober 2003 12:35 -0500 Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree with everything you said except...
>>
>>>Given the current rate of change in this area, I suggest that
>>>we select that person for a period of ONE year, not two.
>>
>>Given that your term ends in one year, I'd rather see
>>this person appointed for two years.
>>
>>Margaret