Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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.

    Brian

> 
> 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