Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

Nico Williams <> Fri, 26 December 2014 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362C11ACE74; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:04:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.034
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHCTTYsXmnAo; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510381ACE71; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C9420046B15; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:04:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=ShsRNTdBlxk6hS 6WlXEQeq24zs4=; b=dsmdocu4cD8zaaJA31V3Tr0bos8rOHQShPJUBCTbHFoslH viMR+Hm7+3Y0X4YuIIMeDKFm8hg1Y9vR17qXZ9UhIKV6iz3khQ9VfHQvN9tA5SAY pQWXrJfuHjjLn7o7RX/EVs454pnKbg77pcZs60G3uzY49Djh3g5h+vnAC3bm0=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C687120046915; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:04:44 -0600
From: Nico Williams <>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Message-ID: <20141226220438.GA16521@localhost>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: IETF Announcement List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:04:49 -0000

For maximum flexibility just make "areas" much more informal, or even
drop the concept completely.  Instead just dole out "ADs" (now just
plain IESG members) to WGs as the IESG sees fit, perhaps in consultation
with WG chairs.  For new WGs, the sponsoring IESG members would be it,
and if there isn't one then one should be assigned (or the WG should not
be chartered).

This would allow the IESG to balance its members' load as the IESG sees

And it helps a bit with scheduling: since ADs can't be in two meetings
at the same time, one way to ensure non-conflicting meeting slot
assignments for N WGs is to have one AD for all N.  :)

I rather like this.  IESG members should be generalists who can
specialize as needed.  Specialist reviews are already available from the
various directorates anyways.

One downside would be less stability for WG/"AD" assignments, but where
that's seen as disruptive the IESG would -presumably- work hard to keep

Anyways, that's my take of what the IESG is saying here: "areas" no
longer work as an organizing principle.  Assuming I read that right, I