--On Thursday, September 28, 2023 15:59 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > See my comments on this relative to the nomcom on the > ietf-nomcom list, but... > > If I read this correctly, and this is what actually happens, > both Francesca and Zahed will have one year left on their > personal terms at the time this reorg takes place. That would > mean that both will expire NEXT Nomcom... Let's not do that > - please? Mike, It also means that, if the Nomcom does not choose to return Murray for another term (and unless someone who has been on the IESG before is chosen) we will have two completely new ADs in ART in March as well as the potential for two new ones in the new area a year from now due to the term co-expiration problem. Although I'm sure Francesca would help, in essence that puts the Nomcom into one of the scenarios you used as an example: regardless of what the job description text says in isolation, the combination of this reorg plan and the ART job description creates an effective job description for one of the ART slots that says "reappoint Murray or expect a really low-functioning area for a while". -john > On 9/28/2023 1:46 PM, Martin Duke wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> As the TSVWG responsible AD, I intend to keep the >> current competencies and will shortly initiate a mild >> recharter (renaming but keeping the same acronym). It will >> not be a catch-all for all WIT topics. >> >> My ART and TSV colleagues will have to confer on these other >> questions. Personally, I think that TSVAREA is not >> particularly effective at this time and Zahed and I are >> quite open to making WITAREA whatever it needs to be. >> >> As of 119, the WIT ADs will be Francesca and Zahed. The ART >> ADs are both coming from the NomCom process. >> >> Martin >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 7:19 PM Mark Nottingham >> <mnot=40mnot.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> There are a few aspect that could use some clarification: >> >> * What's the scope of DISPATCH in this new world? >> * Does WITAREA (?) now pertain to both the Web and the >> Transport-related work, replacing ARTAREA for the ART >> groups that have moved? >> * Does TSVWG remain focused on transport, or will it now >> also include Web-related work? >> * As of 119, who will the ADs be for each area? >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> > On 23 Sep 2023, at 2:30 am, Martin Duke >> <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Two weeks ago, the IESG proposed [1] a merger of parts >> > of the >> TSV and ART areas into a new area, and invited community >> comment. >> > >> > After consideration of that feedback, the IESG has >> > decided to >> proceed with the reorganization with a few tweaks, >> effective before IETF 119, and will shortly transmit >> additional requests to the NomCom. >> > >> > Briefly, the purposes of this initiative are to (1) >> > eliminate >> one position where recruiting is difficult, (2) maintain >> at least two ADs for each area except GEN, and (3) avoid >> increasing the size of the IESG. >> > >> > == Summary of the Plan == >> > >> > The new area will be named "Web and Internet >> > Transport" (WIT). >> It will consist of AVTCORE, CDNI, CCWG, CORE, HTTPAPI, >> HTTPBIS, MASQUE, MOQ, NFSV4, QUIC, RTCWEB, TAPS, TCPM, >> TSVAREA (to be renamed), TSVWG (to be renamed), and >> WEBTRANS. >> > >> > The transport area (TSV) will cease to exist. ALTO and >> > IPPM will >> move to OPS. DTN will move to INT. SCIM and TIGRESS will >> move to SEC [2]. All other working groups will remain >> in their current area, and ART will continue to have two >> ADs. >> > >> > Future NomComs will be asked to ensure that at least >> > one WIT AD >> has expertise in HTTP and related topics, while at least >> one AD has expertise in traditional transport-layer >> topics. Obviously, a candidate may have expertise in >> both, and the precise relationship between the two ADs >> will be resolved by each pair. Two distinct skill sets >> are a model successfully used in the Ops and Management >> area. >> > >> > The Transport Area Review Team (TSVART) would not >> > change its >> purpose, scope, or operations, but will be renamed, given >> that there is no more transport area. One WIT AD would >> have primary responsibility for managing this team. The >> HTTP Directorate would also remain as-is and would be >> overseen by the other WIT AD. There are no changes to the >> ARTART at this time. >> > >> > == Next steps == >> > >> > In response to feedback, the IESG is deferring the >> > decision of >> which ART AD moves to WIT until the new IESG convenes at >> IETF 119, although Francesca Palombini remains willing to >> move. As a result, the ART AD job descriptions are not >> changing at this time. >> > >> > However, the IESG will revise its request to the NomCom >> > to not >> fill the TSV AD position currently occupied by Martin >> Duke. Furthermore, one of the two open ART positions will >> change from a two-year to a one-year term to stagger the >> positions going forward. >> > >> > == Summary of feedback == >> > >> > This section attempts to categorize the feedback >> > received in >> response to [1], with brief responses where appropriate. >> > >> > = High-order bits = >> > >> > Web and Transport are a bad fit: Touch, Nottingham >> > Web and Transport are a good fit: Pauly, Pardue, >> > Baryun, Huitema >> > >> > IESG: After considering some alternatives, we came to >> > the >> conclusion that Web and Transport were a good fit for the >> reasons the supporters describe. >> > >> > AD Partnering is not important: Nottingham >> > AD Partnering is important: Kuhlewind, Baryun >> > >> > IESG: The current ADs believe having a partner is >> > important. It >> is certainly possible to have ad hoc partnerships, but we >> believe habitual relationships decrease the cognitive >> load of the job. Furthermore, the Ops/Management area is >> an example of this arrangement working. >> > >> > This is good overall: Pauly, Blanchet, Swett, Schinazi, >> > Aboba, >> Black, Zhou, Bishop, Schwartz >> > >> > IESG: Thanks for the feedback! >> > >> > This is fine, but we should think much bigger: S. >> > Farrell, >> Richardson, Carpenter >> > >> > IESG: This does not preclude further work on >> > fundamental changes >> to the IESG, though that work will take longer. Moreover, >> it is reasonable to try incremental changes to solve >> problems before trying sweeping ones. >> > >> > This will waste time and move in the wrong direction: >> > Moore >> > >> > IESG: We do not believe this is actionable except as a >> > comment >> opposing this reorganization. >> > >> > Integrate with IEEE 802.11 better: Taht >> > Transfer groups to the W3C: Wood >> > Remove congestion control as a core competency: Eckert >> > >> > IESG: We are not considering changes to our >> > relationship with >> external SDOs at this time. Furthermore, we believe TCP, >> QUIC, HTTP, and other protocols in this area are core >> competencies of the IETF. >> > >> > This change is too disruptive right now, and we should >> > think >> much bigger: Klensin, and a private responder >> > It's too late to start in the 2023-24 cycle: Salz, >> > Hardie >> > >> > IESG: While this is a reasonable concern, we have been >> > in >> contact with the active NomCom chair, with full knowledge >> of the IETF Chair opening, and believe our course of >> action is feasible. Indeed, IETF chair vacancies are >> common occurrences. >> > >> > Look at bluesheets to do area groupings: Gondwana >> > >> > IESG: This would be an interesting exercise, but we >> > will not >> block on someone volunteering to do it. Attendance >> overlaps are only one consideration for area assignments. >> > >> > = Low order bits = >> > >> > Don't have a strict line between transport and web: >> > Pauly >> > >> > IESG: The exact relationship between the WIT ADs will be >> determined by each pair, depending on their skills and >> preferences. The role of this reorganization is to have >> clear requests to the NomCom for the collective skill set >> of the ADs. >> > >> > DTN should be in INT: Blanchet >> > DTN should be in RTG: Touch >> > >> > IESG: In our view, the case for each area has similar >> > strength, >> but INT has more capacity to take another WG. >> > >> > Form a OAM/Fault Management/Performance WG: Mirsky >> > >> > IESG: Chartering new WGs is out of scope for this >> reorganization, but you are always welcome to suggest a >> BOF through the usual process. >> > >> > There should be a report at IETF 120: Baryun >> > WGs must consent to being moved: Baryun >> > >> > IESG: RFC2026 leaves the organization of the details of >> > the >> standards work in the IETF to the IESG, and that includes >> assigning WGs to areas. This IESG strongly encourages >> the future IESG to report at IETF 120. >> > >> > Pick the name carefully: Scharf >> > >> > IESG: We reconsidered the proposals and settled on WIT >> > instead. >> > >> > Don't move an ART AD until after the new IESG is >> > seated: Schwartz >> > >> > IESG: In response to this suggestion, we will defer this >> decision (see above). Francesca remains willing to move >> if her fellow ART ADs agree. >> > >> > [1] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iydZ0V3emgjhxV >> itq_2CGEMo5f8/ >> > >> > [2] Roman Danyliw is already Responsible AD for these >> > working >> groups. >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >>
