--On Wednesday, October 08, 2014 22:36 -0700 Jari Arkko
<jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul,
>
>> As someone who has been active in Apps WGs for 20 years
>> (sigh), I would hate to see the area disappear, but that kind
>> of thinking has caused the IETF to hold on to other things
>> much too long.
First, having been active in what is now IETF applications work
on and off for longer than many IETF participants have been
active in breathing, I agree with Paul.
I also note that a lot of the work that became RAI was split off
from Apps so, in some respects, this discussion is just about
recombining or rebalancing the work. That is consistent with
the original announcement and Jari's remarks below.
> I wanted to say that while we are talking about changing
> organisation, we are *not* abandoning any work. The number of
> WGs and topics fluctuates, but I cannot think of many more
> significant standards efforts at the moment than what we are
> doing with HTTP 2.0 for instance. Apps work is very important,
> and we continue to be happy to create new working groups and
> sponsor BOFs. However, we also feel that slightly bigger group
> of ADs would allow some flexibility to deal with the
> fluctuations, distribute workload better, etc. So - no
> disappearance but rather a change in form.
This isn't quite a suggestion since the IESG has apparently made
up its mind, but, especially in a time of transition, there are
some major advantages to having two ADs in an area, including
the ability of two specialists with different perspectives to
talk with each other and sort out ideas. Everyone who has
gotten a cross-area review comment that seemed to be off the
wall from an out-of-area AD will understand why general
conversations with the rest of the IESG are no substitute (even
though they may be very helpful and important for other
reasons).
So, all other things being equal, I think it would have been
better to ask the Nomcom to make a one-year appointment if they
could find someone satisfactory [1] and then sort things out
during the next year as planned but with two Apps ADs rather
than cutting the slot now on the assumption that one AD could
and would be able to handle all relevant working groups,
thinking about new plans, and all other IESG responsibilities.
That would be a non-issue if the IESG already had a plan worked
out to transition some specific WGs into other areas by March 27
or earlier, but the announcement implies that is not the case.
john
[1] If the IESG and Nomcom could interpret the rules
appropriately, my thought would be to explicitly tell the Nomcom
that it would be ok to not make an appointment if they concluded
that they couldn't find someone satisfactory for the role, i.e.,
without either making an appointment of someone inexperienced in
the area or scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel.