Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

Nico Williams <> Fri, 26 December 2014 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9C31ACF81 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:47:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hwkGkZfbBGQ for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0017B1ACF7C for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7BB20046912; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:47:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=NZtJhnCCfM01mG S2eglYUIQ4QIY=; b=AVlqyE75RN35QoyklL+/mByjKS5FdfV7LSBvtiYEd71CzE RiEclBNcG3Pj6mTt95qsQy5STgXsraAakDFbYyAlsnkdB6E5oD05JciyZqoJ26vO CqUhF9EWzRZcx0TFf5oLYkKYyRakUwfmHn4oQygEPolTos3uuoRy32D4NfI18=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 78D1E2005D82E; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:47:54 -0600
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Message-ID: <20141226224748.GB16521@localhost>
References: <> <20141226220438.GA16521@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 22:47:55 -0000

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:28:22AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 27/12/2014 11:04, Nico Williams wrote:
> > For maximum flexibility just make "areas" much more informal, or even
> > drop the concept completely.  Instead just dole out "ADs" (now just
> > plain IESG members) to WGs as the IESG sees fit, perhaps in consultation
> > with WG chairs.  For new WGs, the sponsoring IESG members would be it,
> > and if there isn't one then one should be assigned (or the WG should not
> > be chartered).
> Interesting - I think this is free from the danger of a fragmented IESG
> that I mentioned in my "Mashing areas" reply, if it could be made to
> work. Maybe the Areas could survive as AD specializations, but not
> as globs of WGs.

Exactly.  (I share your concerns about IESGs-within-IESGs.)

And WGs could participate (via feedback) in the "AD" assignment process.
If you're not happy with your WG's AD, ask for a new one.  Hopefully
this wouldn't happen much.

The nomcom's work might get harder, or easier -- I'm not sure.  If
there's a vacancy to be filled: look for a generalist, unless there's a
particular specialty that the IESG is badly in need of.

Again, if too much structure is the problem (the WG square pegs not
fitting in the "area" circular slots), then reducing the amount of
structure seems likely better than adding structure.