Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Option 2 grows the IESG by 1 to 2 ADs.  I concur with sediments
that this will likely make the IESG less effective, hence I oppose
option 2.  And as Option 3 has a high chance of becoming option 1
(become temporary things have a tendency to become permanent), I
dislike it as well.  I favor option 1.

Kurt

At 01:21 PM 12/9/2002, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>All,
>
>On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of
>the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at
>
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html
>
>We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta
>expressing that they want the area to be long(er) lived. This will be part
>of our input.
>
>But we need/want to hear from the IETF community. So please express
>your opionion (and the reasoning behind it) asap on ietf@ietf.org, but certainly before Thursday Dec 12th 10am US Eastern time.
>
>As expressed in the above posting (with data points and discussion included),
>the 3 choices for the SUB-IP Area seem to be:
>
> 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.
>
>The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo (alternative 3).
>
>If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not yet said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to ietf@ietf.org before Thursday.
>
>Thank you!
>
>             Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG
>
>(please repost this message where appropriate)


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]