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

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote:
> ...
>> III.  MERGING OF UPPER LAYER PROTOCOL AREAS
>> 
>> ... 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.

   +1

> 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.

   Or...

   They wouldn't discover this need. :^(

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

   (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
happening.

   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
area.

   (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?

   +1

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>