Fwd: Last Call: <draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.txt> (Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area) to Best Current Practice

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 19 December 2014 01:59 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 AA1661A8AC0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:59:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 3zGL4e75V0G7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C421A8AEE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id uz6so9551683obc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:59:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=gIk2vLsVuQqf6oQ4nkJGjlzBrkw+ovlTBkPn017ovvo=; b=pgRS5Jx4W3Evgwv9r3ChZD4OkhdRXgs2OORk3GLdJiEBXyIulRBd5evdTW+s7hic4N 87H7nHpgcJtHLey46mJBK4H+whFo3Di9D1fyZBBYShwBwVQwa0TSp3toWj3cxLEihsRM j/+L2kfG1zDrV7+ki1Cs4k+XZIVbSHxFYEl17nzRDpVvtz8yc3JkqaiVAx9oZvIIUgvg lLSE2yyMi7/OToFZTdKEGVoiu0aQpdRDgmAwtQZLpMmFUNEOqgqBaRpRvjZHFWH9iVik jVn7PLAceesG2htbD2Txatmnh3XlJ641rEyJmIcjsNk3lYt9I0uy5TmlOW+z8g3rTvg8 Gg3w==
X-Received: by 10.60.96.68 with SMTP id dq4mr3309354oeb.47.1418954334662; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:58:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.147.105 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:58:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEE7Eg-JE-vDCzq4YwXDzcfT=L4TUuR34AXMwrNS-t_OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141208235300.6525.3418.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-em11hqDhHK1joyo7fEVO=uktmfnd5fZpPQ2dT-yiN7Wg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEE7Eg-JE-vDCzq4YwXDzcfT=L4TUuR34AXMwrNS-t_OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:58:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFt=43fT7OFb5V77GAQCQX+Ryqfu_dEKTUgjLr8WgZNaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Last Call: <draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.txt> (Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area) to Best Current Practice
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ncfugSXmZdxn0ySqnFVKjg37C2k
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, 19 Dec 2014 01:59:02 -0000

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's really nothing as awesome as sending Last Call comments on your own
> draft. You should try it some time ... or not.
>
> But please see below.
>
> ...
>
> I had a chat with Scott Bradner today, and Scott asked me to explain some
> history in a different way. The text he questioned was this:
>
> OLD
>
>    In the distant past, all IETF Areas had a single Area Director.  The
>    movement from single Area Directors in an Area to pairs of Area
>    Directors in most Areas happened over a period of years (for
>    reference, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html), as part
>    of the IESG organizing itself to do the work the IESG is chartered to
>    do.
>
> END
>
> Scott said that changes in the number of Area Directors assigned to a given
> Area during "the modern era", post Kobe, wasn't quite the linear progression
> I described, and suggested (my words, trying to capture his thoughts),
> something more like this:
>
> NEW
>
> While it's true that recent IESGs have had two Area Directors in each Area
> except for the General Area, the number of Area Directors in each Area has
> varied since https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1396.txt (for reference, see
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html).
>
> This variation was due to a number of factors, including workload and
> personal preferences, and happened as a natural part of the IESG organizing
> itself to do the work the IESG is chartered to do.
>
> At one point, the IESG placed three Area Directors in a single Area (Scott
> Bradner, Deirdre Kostick, and Michael O'Dell, in the Operational &
> Management Requirements Area, between IETF 36 and IETF 37 in 1996).

I think it is a good change to the text. It grounds the change to the
limit on the number of ADs in real events.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> END
>
> I wouldn't mind hearing people's opinions about making this change as part
> of Last Call, and I don't think the rest of the IESG would mind, either ...
>
> Thanks!
> Spencer
>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>    This document removes a limit on the number of Area Directors who
>>    manage an Area in the definition of "IETF Area".  This document
>>    updates RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and RFC 2418 (BCP 25).
>>
>>...