3/, again, seems contradictory. The status quo is that it disappears. Continuing it without a fixed end date is to subversively result in 2/ without a clear charter definition and Nomcom participation.
To be specific, I don't think 3/ should be on the table, at least not without a finite extension limit. However, what do we expect to change in the next N months? Will all the current groups complete their mission? Will no new groups want to be in this area? If we can't stick to a deadline now, what makes us think we can stick to one in N months?
Joe
1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP (and/or
other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the
remaining WGs.
2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors
3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary,
ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting
ADs to continue the effort that Bert & Scott have been doing. But maybe
give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors,
normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise
live.