Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 26 December 2014 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6290C1ACF66 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aCicZvI-x0i1 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:28:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED4B71ACF57 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id rd3so13770798pab.21 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:28:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aY7ZgM4P30Xzqsd0C17H6OeZV90iMUwzjpW2ep5oEwE=; b=p5+8RfCkUL0rA+oAS8Ho7JJaEoBaKN3rUzpPeQWIszZHLEHsg4Xqoy6DTJmSGbc15I VQTc0aL9BCFjw2rj4BfoIGAiEL4Mz5EdG2/kphu3WnujI20rDwSTs/dUCAS3TvgMC7Bl VCQhUDbvICBmvcuYow3dJYSC7QBkYos6xFR8GaTancVvyVxTuneFusdGxJOYw+9IEH45 Z5E/7qcvAuZCpZkX0BEZ0z+of9+7x611mDA2EkutlIjFH9H3hhwG5/5PnM0sx1C1lZqA 7L4qSpxcoqBHlV8mEz3eIdvEOyQBwlzidAJ8y4VlfyXVBy8uLUlesQQ+evYC/bAHF4Ho b/EA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w9mr71834347pds.58.1419632894210; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4072:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4072:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id nl14sm18472912pdb.81.2014. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:28:22 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nico Williams <>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
References: <> <20141226220438.GA16521@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20141226220438.GA16521@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 22:28:16 -0000

On 27/12/2014 11:04, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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
> fit.

Interesting - I think this is free from the danger of a fragmented IESG
that I mentioned in my "Mashing areas" reply, if it could be made to
work. Maybe the Areas could survive as AD specializations, but not
as globs of WGs.


> 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
> stability.
> 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
> agree.
> Nico