Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 05:24:23PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
> The third is that the proposal for a single mega-area that handles all
> upper-layer protocols and transports does not strike me, personally, as
> that well thought out.  [...]
>                                                        [...].  Why it is
> better for that to be informal, rather than formalized into areas doesn't
> get set out that well in the statement you've given, and if that isn't the
> expectation, more explanation of how you expect that to work would be
> valuable.  [...]

That's my take as well: if formal areas are too difficult to manage,
then get rid of them altogether as a formal organizing principle.

One concern that might come up then is: will each assignment of an IESG
members (no longer "ADs") to WGs become a matter of debate for the IETF?
That would be death by a thousand paper cuts.

IMO: lose areas as a formal organizing principle, design a light-weight
process for "AD" assignments to WGs, move on.

'Areas' as an organizing principle are... distracting -- at least some
areas that exist or are being proposed are.  I rougly know what areas
named "transport" or "security" are and what fits there.  But then you
look at the details and oddities pop up.  Just get rid of them.  But
keep the directorates!

Nico
--