Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

"Fred Baker (fred)" <> Fri, 26 December 2014 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C491D1A9308 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:29:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HNtHxXQt299h for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53AFB1A1AA9 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:29:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2102; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419629393; x=1420838993; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2Id3moTroZ4JohlgB815nCfBAJjsnCIiFgyFQEQrNVU=; b=W90n3OiD53tfha/hmuIOW0G4JW1V3RhRK1S9l9u/4eEcdtH67h+15zfh b9ectcWQXO0S71frNn8+TAkhuzGOLeLkPUNlscUSQNDzvEMGenhVolGZo HzuLZkaes7RBYZryYLXBT3962u4rGA6OdGZTAGEth5Llue2+rOuEpKetG A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,648,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="382787055"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 26 Dec 2014 21:29:52 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBQLTqRF014225 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:29:52 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:29:52 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Thread-Topic: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Thread-Index: AQHQIHiywYfe/JClwEuXaiee7OF6t5yiycwA
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:29:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 21:29:54 -0000

> On Dec 25, 2014, at 11:25 AM, IETF Chair <> wrote:

I find the date, um, "interesting”. Personally, on December 25, I am involved with other activities. I note that my company generally makes financial announcements a few minutes after NASDAQ closes, and a variety of organizations make announcements when they think nobody is listening. Is the IETF...?

> The IESG believes the re-organization should proceed according to the
> following principles:
> 1) Agility: The IESG should be able to adapt as Internet engineering evolves.
> When work focus shifts and new technologies emerge, it is critical that the
> the IESG can follow the shift and effectively manage the new work.
> 2) Relevance: The organization of the technical work must facilitate the
> IETF's continued relevance to the industry. As we change how we develop
> technology throughout the Internet, the IETF must be able to change how our
> standards development works with the technology development.
> 3) Flexibility: The organization of the IESG and of the technical areas should
> accommodate variations in workloads, time commitments, and AD skillsets, as
> well as changes in those over time. It is important to make it possible for
> more IETF participants to be able to serve as Area Directors and to make the
> work co-exist with their normal jobs.
> 4) Sustainability: The Area Director role should be a position that
> accomplished engineers aspire to and that employers want to support. We should
> emphasize the "steering" and "director" aspects, supporting and guiding the
> technical work in the working groups.

The principles make sense to me.

What I might suggest is that the IESG first wonder among itself whether it has the right areas. Deciding to blur the boundaries between them might work in the short term, but ultimately isn’t an organizing principle.

Suggesting that should include every email address in the charter makes sense.