Re: Update on the re-organisation steps

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I like this proposal a lot.  Thanks for all the efforts in considering and
incorporating community feedback.

Regards,
Mary

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:56 AM, IETF Chair <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The IESG has discussed the re-organisation proposal and the comments
> that we have received. Thank you for providing feedback!
>
> We have decided to move forward with two parts of the original proposal,
> continue thinking about the third one, and have identified a fourth item
> that
> needs even more focus:
>
> 1. We are asking the Nomcom to seat a third AD for the Routing Area. The
> desired expertise for this position is the same as the one already used
> for the
> position that was open noting an increase in YANG related work in the RTG
> Area, and the three working groups that will move from INT to RTG. The
> position is for two years. This change addresses changes in work that is
> coming to IETF, making the management of this work easier, and it is
> anticipated that the work-load for RTG Areas will be normalized as a
> result.
>
> 2. We have been implementing a change in how flexible the assignment of
> ADs is to areas. This is necessary in order to ensure that we have
> sufficient
> agility to perform our management tasks, and is demonstrated by our
> re-assignment of some of the OPS Area working groups to non-OPS ADs
> as one of the OPS  ADs has taken on broader responsibility for IETF
> YANG work.
>
> As we rebalance, this change will affect how WGs are assigned to ADs,
> and this will require changes in how the IESG operates as well as changes
> to some of the data tracker tools.
>
> Note that this is a change with regards to which AD manages specific
> working
> groups. The assignment of working groups to areas will not change as a
> result
> of this procedural change. An AD can be the most suitable manager for the
> working group, even when the working group itself remains associated with a
> different area. An area is not merely about the ADs managing it, it is also
> category of topics on a particular branch of technology, a designation in
> our
> agendas, usually overseen by one or multiple directorates, and scheduled so
> as to avoid too many conflicts within the area. Areas are also loose
> collections
> of people working together, and the assignment of ADs to particular working
> groups should not have an effect on any of these other aspects of an area.
>
> This change relates only to agility, and the IESG fully recognises the
> observation that a key focus for organizational changes in the IETF should
> be in moving work from the IESG to working groups or other entities.
>
> 3. We have heard the feedback from the community that there is concern
> about creating a "mega-area" formed by combining APP, RAI, and TSV. We
> will think about this proposal further and will come back either with a
> stronger rationale or an alternative plan of more normal-sized areas: any
> proposal for structural change will reflect the feedback you have given us.
>
> 4. With respect to ensuring that AD workload is suitable for a broad of
> class
> contributors willing to take on the task, the IESG clearly needs to take
> additional steps. Agility and right area structure helps spread the
> workload
> better across ADs, but other changes are needed. But this is a continuous
> process. Our desire to push document approval Comment and Discuss
> resolution more to the working groups and e-mail has significantly reduced
> the length of our tele chats in recent years, for instance, and we are
> starting
> a project to eliminate errata processing as an AD task. We will return to
> this
> topic with further proposals later as well.
>
> Jari Arkko for the IESG
>