On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 6:08 PM Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven.io@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 Iread that as "enough legitimate concern", because the word 'apparent' normally enlargesa possible scope whereas here it seems to be used as "assumed without verification by me").
The concerns are reasonable but I was not worried as this participant because I think that the IESG must evaluate its proposals/decisions while implementing them, and should be responsible for all results. Also the WGs affected by the decision need to make feedback/comments each coming f2f meeting when questioning IESG.
But even if you believe you have seen those concerns, have you evaluated them againstnot doing the re-arranging of the areas? The question is not "will this be less than completelysmooth and seamless transition". The question is "will this end up with a more balanced ADworkload that reduces publication time of documents". As the IESG came up with this proposal,we do seem to think this would be better.
I think this discussion subject needs to be within both discuss_methods, in f2f discussion and in ietf list discussion, as all ietf WGs when they determine evaluations. The reason is that IMHO I don't see much f2f discussions with IESG while they have done structure change or evaluation.
Note also that when I just joined, Francesca was _great_ at helping me starting up my AD role, andshe was not even in SEC. The other ADs in the IESG, as well as the IETF Secretariat, IANA and theRFC Editor, and even former ADs, did an excellent job helping me, and I'm sure that will happenagain this time.
We all want that it happens again this time, but not only help because we need progress and as you mentioned reducing delays, and so ietf WGs will need reports of progress from IESG.
AB
