On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AB5- the slides consider how the IETF WG is created but not how IETF areas are created. I don't think it is right that IESG should only be responsible for creating IETF areas. The community should have voice in creating or changing IETF areas.
The community has (or at least is supposed to have) a voice in any such change. As I understand it, there are actually very few things the IESG is allowed to do without consulting participants.
I hope in future that each 5 years we get a message from IESG saying IETF areas structure proposal (renew same, or restructure). That can be done in one meeting may be better than the list.
I don't think setting a specific interval when such changes are allowed to be introduced or affirmed is useful.
AB5- Slide 5, shows f2f (i.e. face to face) attendance of participants which increased between 1996 to 2002, in average above 2000. That is a 8 year duration with many meetings per year (totally about 24 f2f event) with numbers of about 2000 attendees and then decreased after 2002 becoming in average above 1000 and less than 1500 attendees. IMHO, the community had not continued to attend because of possible difficulties or high probability of waste time, with slow production, also the diversity problem that still IETF needs to fix.
I have to agree with Lloyd; I don't think those are the causes.
-MSK