Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

For what it is worth, I agree with what Stephen says below:

> I don't think so. There are just huge differences in how different
> WGs impinge on AD workload. I think we should look to try to spot
> any imbalances that exist and adjust where needed. We do that already
> within the SEC area, and ADs in other areas also do, but I don't
> think we can use a number-of-WGs-per-AD metric except as the most
> coarse grained measure. (And the out-of-area AD thing gives us
> another tool to balance workloads.)

Which I think is the point - the proposed re-organisation is largely about the IESG becoming more flexible. We need that flexibility to tune our operations to the current topics today and in the future.

Also, there’s another question about what the proper workload is for an AD, and a third question about ways in which we can move more of the IESG work to WGs. Those are important questions, too, but we still need the flexibility to address topics as they grow and shrink.

Jari