| Hi Martin, Thanks for sharing this. I’m definitely in favor of this reorganization overall, for how we organize the working groups into areas. A few points I think that make particular sense: - Some of the existing TSV groups like IPPM and ALTO seem like they do indeed fit better in OPS. As IPPM chair, much of our participation overlap is more with OPS already, and we have little overlap with the rest of TSV. - The overlap in topics and participants between QUIC / MASQUE / HTTPBIS / MOQ / etc means that these already form something of a “track” for scheduling. The current boundary between TSV and ART doesn’t quite make sense for them. - Looking at the overall numbers of ADs to cover groups, I definitely think that we don’t need as much coverage for TSV as defined today, and since we’ve already added a third AD for the current ART area, ART is getting large and a bit unwieldy. I’d rather see things rebalance instead of simply adding more ADs without removing them from the areas that are not as large. At the very least, I definitely support not filling the newly vacant TSV AD role. The one potential change I could see here is to not draw the strict line between having the “transport” AD and the “web applications” AD — to Mark’s point, this does make the coverage/failover story a bit awkward, and I’m not sure we benefit by a having a sharp line. Since there is so much overlap in participants here, I think we could be well-served by two ADs who both work on both QUIC and HTTP/3 for example. The NomCom could be given guidance to try to make sure the AD pair isn’t too lopsided, but I think it would be cleaner to just have a unified new area. Best, Tommy
|
