Bert,
The explanation helps. Most of my comments were in hindsight
and I didn't intend to cast any blame on you (or Scott) for
being surprised. And, given the situation in which you found
yourselves, and the IESG generally, after Atlanta, I think the
way this is being handled is probably among the better solutions
possible. I certainly applaud it if the alternative is that the
IESG go off in secret and make a decision with no broad
community input -- and I assume that, given the time
constraints, that _was_ the alternative.
But, in hindsight,...
(i) I don't like these sorts of surprises that leave little time
to think about an important issue. I don't think anyone does.
I think all of us who have been around the industry for a while
understand that they happen. But, when they happen regularly, I
begin to wonder about the management processes that seem to be
unable to prevent them. That is a general problem if it is a
problem at all, the Sub-IP area issues may or may not be an
example or symptom.
(ii) This is either an issue that was important enough to
discuss with the community or it isn't. If it is, then it
should have been mentioned at the plenary and called to the
attention of the IETF community as other than an item on a
WG/area agenda. Even if you thought it wasn't an issue until
after the [sub]area meeting, there should have been opportunity
to bring it up at the plenary and to get an announcement out to
IETF-Announce during that week indicating it was an issue the
community needed to think about. If that didn't happen because
you folks are all just too overloaded, then that reinforces the
need for some effort to change the level or nature of the load.
regards,
john
--On Tuesday, 10 December, 2002 15:25 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)" <bwijnen@LUCENT.COM> wrote:
> John writes:
> .. snip ..
>
>> Once we dispose of "make it permanent", then we have more
>> flexibility about answers. What should we do? Well, for
>> starters and to be very blunt, I'm concerned about the
>> implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December.
>> The IESG has known for two years that this point was coming.
>> An area meeting was held in Atlanta, but there was no notice
>> to the general community that this was going to be a major
>> topic, no strong mention of it at the plenary or pre-Atlanta
>> mailings to the whole IETF, etc. I have to consider that a
>> symptom of a more general problem.
>
> speaking as one of the (current) ADs of the subIP area.
> We really believed that the subip area would accept that the
> area would be closed down (as was agreed 2 years ago at the
> start) and that the discussion would be more about into which
> areas each remaining WG would move. We did announce that the
> future of subip was on the agenda as per:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu]
> Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 15:14
> To: agenda@ietf.org
> Cc: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Subject: SUB-IP meeting agenda
>
> 1/ area status ADs 15
> chairs
>
> 2/ options for the future of the area ADs 15
>
> 3/ open discussion all 30
>
> I admit that this was a bit late.
>
> We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to
> keep the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. I will
> let Scott speak for himself.
>
> I think Harald also explained why we are in such a hurry.
> We have our IESG telechat this Thursday and we want to try to
> formulate an IESG view of the future of the subIP area and
> pass that on to the nomcom. They should have it rather sooner
> than later.
>
> In hindsight... yes we should have started this discussion
> earlier.
>
> Hope the explanation helps.
> Thanks for the input
> Bert
>