Re: Mashing areas [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]

John Leslie <> Fri, 26 December 2014 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04451ACF58 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:27:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TaHRHt30dKTy for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE60F1ACF55 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 8E3DBC94BD; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:27:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:27:26 -0500
From: John Leslie <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: Mashing areas [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]
Message-ID: <20141226222726.GB27054@verdi>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
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 22:27:39 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote:
> ...
>> ... the IESG is proposing to merge the APP, RAI, and TSV areas into one
>> combined Network Applications (NAPP) area. From March 2015-March 2016,
>> this combined area would be overseen by the five remaining ADs from
>> APP, RAI, and TSV, with some redistribution of WG shepherding
>> responsibilities among them to balance workloads. DISPATCH, TSVWG,
>> and APPSAWG would continue to function much as they currently do.
> I've been trying to think of a nice way to say this, but there isn't one.

   I couldn't think of a nice-way, either... :^(

> I think this is a terrible idea. It would create a very unwieldy structure,
> effectively an IESG within the IESG.


> It would only take about a week for the 5 ADs concerned to decide that
> they need weekly coordination meetings; after a month they'd discover
> the need for a well-defined chair for those meetings.


   They wouldn't discover this need. :^(

> Depending on the individuals, the result might be a power bloc within the

   (Actually, I don't worry about that...)

> Given that there might also be a mini-power bloc formed by 3 Routing ADs,
> the dynamics of the IESG would be very different and chairing it could
> become rather challenging.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = On>

   There is in fact a lot of cooperation between the two ADs in an area.
Technically, I suppose this could lead to a "power-block" where one of
them places a DISCUSS and the other supports it -- but that simply isn't

   This kind of cooperation has been improving quite a bit over the last
five years: whenever one of the ADs in an area is absent from a telechat,
the other knows enough to advise how to proceed on the documents in
question. I can't imagine how this will get easier with three ADs to an

   (Nonetheless, I support the IESG choosing to experiment with three
RTG ADs for one year.)

   But going from two to five in the yet-unnamed APPS area worries me.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = Off>

> I fully appreciate the RAI/Apps issue. There's clear overlap and a lot has
> changed since RAI was created. I agree you have to do something there.

   I could support that also as an experiment. I'm less sure it'll work
well; but so long as it's an experiment we can back out of, I'm OK.

> However, the merge with Transport is technically strange. Agreed, there
> are four or five WGs in Transport that could equally well be in Apps, and
> there are some in RAI that could equally well be in Transport.

   Those are things the IESG should just-do.

> But beyond that, I just don't see the synergy.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = On>

   I well remember IESG discussion over the problem of finding TSV ADs.
IMHO, we've made progress, and no longer give the NOMCOM impossible
job descriptions. I worry that merging TSV into APPS may be an attempt
to solve a problem which is no longer there.

   I worry even more that this attempt at merging will generate another
impossible job-description for a larger area.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = Off>

> (Where we need synergy, we know how to create it, e.g. the DART WG.)
> Wouldn't it be better to rebalance by moving a few groups from RAI to
> Transport, and the solve the RAI/Apps problem on its own?


John Leslie <>