On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course. There will periodically be a group of people who want to create a new format for data about people or calendar events, or some possibly-useful way to use HTTP or email, and so on. With this change, they will have to go to an area that is not filled with people who have done that themselves earlier. That's fine: keeping the area around just for that is not a good use of human resources.
I agree with the lauding of any organization that undertakes this sort of structural review from time to time. However, I'm a little uneasy about doing away with APP completely. I do agree that a lot of APP area work is going into the web and there's a lot of overlap with RAI in that realm, but APP also looks after a lot of much older but still relevant protocols, and also things like the media type registries. Into which of the remaining areas might that work fall? People might find it confusing to have to take their new email-related idea or media type, for example, and shop it around to SEC, INT, RAI, TSV, RTG, GEN or OPS looking for a new WG or a sponsoring AD, and if I were an AD of any of those areas, I'm not sure I'd want it in mine. One could argue that stuff without an obvious home lands in GEN, but the IESG Chair is busy enough as it is. Or should we expand the definition of GEN to cover such things, and find a second AD for that?
-MSK