--On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 08:46 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20-Sep-23 06:13, Ted Hardie wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> I'm returning to this message, as my thinking on it has >> changed since Lars made his announcement. I think it would >> be difficult for the NomCom to manage the interim replacement >> of the IETF chair and a reorganization of this scope with the >> time available. It would also be more difficult for any >> candidates for Chair, since they would be stepping into a >> position in a group undergoing a significant reorganization. > > That could be an opportunity as much as a challenge. On > balance, I think I disagree with Ted. If the reorg is needed, > delay is a bad idea. Brian, If AET were not already in a problem state (due in large measure to Francesca's limited availability over the last year), I would probably agree. Part of the plan there was that ADs from other areas will step in to help, but I don't believe that has worked, at least partially because, until and unless we reorganize in a much more significant way than is proposed (and do it retroactively), more subject matter expertise than those other ADs have had has been necessary. I also don't see the " web-related working groups" category beomg quite as clear as Martin's original 8 September note implies: several issues have come up in the last year where web-oriented WGs have interacted with applications whose connection to the web is less clear and where, at least IMO, both being in a single area has been of significant benefit. So, if a reorg is needed --and this were a real reorg, not just shuffling some WGs and area designations around-- I again might agree, but I'd still think it would be better to have things in a stable state before disrupting them. Remembering, as I pointed out on the 9th, that there are no safe experiments here --if things don't work out, the results would be likely to be quite damaging to getting work done efficiently-- I think minimizing the number of balls we have in the air at one time is probably wise. And, probably like Ted, I don't see the urgency here. Moving things around before everyone is caught up and in a moderately stable state seems to be very risky with little guaranteed payoff. To restate your comment above, it is simply unclear that the type of changes being proposed are sufficiently close to a reorg, and sufficiently low-risk, to justify a claim of urgency. best, john
