IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 27 December 2014 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A6D1A1B93 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 GnJaRnfretDt for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2CC01A1B8C for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z11so9019894lbi.10 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KvsPwtSZexlhAEuHbRxjW/TobbomlboODsxVB0p0OY4=; b=NWStsFRSL597VAjCnoM63dkBvpLgRNQ8xuM2rpLCVpig/RFW1xTvZGp+b1edzwKywo DqRhaq8OTSXLNKsNqD6ahdGvpYTXcjMz1Q/GcegjeKSdybeBy5dWglt7CVIewfi2+81i h7QfcXtVrabuBTBMSNHMMOCdASDSe61zNZTV6iKozuf/b+5NzcGoVH4FJTfGauFroQA/ eHBPMwzGn+1CyXS7gZyKxed+iEiyfrpV5rhApTLoJ7XY/rJ40swkdTjHcTxtG+/PUpsq Ba5GPlBJ8cU4PrI7DLTqh/GxDamFs3PLtMeTkPR2HtgPyb6hG+nGGGiRlrQiuDJLRpOM mP6g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.72.197 with SMTP id f5mr23290690lbv.21.1419654963167; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.185.195 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.185.195 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:36:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52C17109-FC76-424D-94A0-A47BFFA2A373@cisco.com>
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <7973.1419613616@sandelman.ca> <CAG4d1rcXa10moh7-V2oteV+3o8y0s+QwCTXaCWt5aBeRdPKv=A@mail.gmail.com> <549DB9A6.4050506@gmail.com> <549DBC61.8020004@cs.tcd.ie> <DF715316-FB14-4D1F-905D-FEFFA1C55371@piuha.net> <52C17109-FC76-424D-94A0-A47BFFA2A373@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:36:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fVvUAPHwUo8A-9CJ1720O0-hbXqGHAshokw=nFBzcVfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c23d8ac885f7050b2b2dcc"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/XJp5lHKtzdHlHFRZ6TnQckFuekg
Cc: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 04:36:07 -0000

On Dec 26, 2014 9:25 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Dumb question: Does our nomcom procedure restrict us too much?

Fred, you would likely remember better than I which past Nomcom chair said
it (I'm guessing Geoff Huston), but I'm remembering one of you asking why
IESG staffing decisions have to take more than six weeks (*) ...

So, I don't think that's a dumb question.

(*) It was one of the past Nomcom chairs on the design team Russ put
together that provided the raw material for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues/

Spencer

> What the nomcom does is select people to fill defined slots. While there
is as much latitude as we like in what those slots are (at one point we
merged Operations and Management to become O&M, and at one point we created
RAI out of whole cloth), the fact is that we don’t change them too much. Do
we need to give the IESG encouragement (I think it has the latitude it
needs, but does it need encouragement?) to open up new areas as needed, and
close areas that are being less effective?
>
> I would encourage every AD to close a working group every year. On
average, we do in fact close one for each one we open. Would closing more
working groups help?
>
> What would happen if we played 52 card pickup with 129 working groups -
scattering their names on a 3D “table" and drawing spheres around the ones
most closely related? Would we wind up with the divisions we have today?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email