On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:56 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
And, fwiw, if there were clear community consensus that this
particular rearrangement of ADs and Areas was a good idea, I
wouldn't be investing the time to worry about this. But, while
I can accept that IESG's determination of rough consensus on the
topic, enough apparently legitimate concerns have been made
about the reorganization itself to predict a less than
completely smooth and seamless transition, thereby adding to the
concerns about moving ADs around.
I don't think I agree with having seen "enough apparently legitimate concerns" (and I
read that as "enough legitimate concern", because the word 'apparent' normally enlarges
a possible scope whereas here it seems to be used as "assumed without verification by me").
But even if you believe you have seen those concerns, have you evaluated them against
not doing the re-arranging of the areas? The question is not "will this be less than completely
smooth and seamless transition". The question is "will this end up with a more balanced AD
workload that reduces publication time of documents". As the IESG came up with this proposal,
we do seem to think this would be better.
Note also that when I just joined, Francesca was _great_ at helping me starting up my AD role, and
she was not even in SEC. The other ADs in the IESG, as well as the IETF Secretariat, IANA and the
RFC Editor, and even former ADs, did an excellent job helping me, and I'm sure that will happen
again this time.
Paul
best,
john
