Re: Update on the re-organisation steps

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 16 January 2015 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A681B29B6; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:00:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XiU6Dmi8VCoe; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBBC41B29B4; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0GM02gi084594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: Update on the re-organisation steps
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362E4E7A@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:02 -0600
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 443138402.403219-37a1c244f943b9daf03a083f0267c4c4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <27649B81-3A15-4A61-8FE9-58570612C3AB@nostrum.com>
References: <C2C22B8E-DF63-4973-B116-6372E32A0885@ietf.org> <CABmDk8=+WeBccpdd8Z1btnEJZTwPQU55DObRzTjyukfM9Bno-g@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362E4E7A@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TbkrLVpoS-C4MUJrUNBTIZm5ymc>
Cc: IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:00:06 -0000

I agree that this is much improved as an initial plan.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jan 16, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
> 
> +1, Thanks, --David
>  
> From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:59 AM
> To: ietf
> Cc: IETF WG Chairs; IETF Announcement List
> Subject: Re: Update on the re-organisation steps
>  
> 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 <chair@ietf.org> 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