At 11:53 AM 10/14/2014, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >Having read this thread..... > >- The IESG considers a structural change to its organization of work. >- The IESG considers that the timeframe for figuring out details of this change is on the order of a year. >- The IESG thinks that as part of the details of this change, it's unlikely to add more workload to an area that has quite few groups in the near future. >- The IESG therefore thinks that it should leave an AD position in this area open for a while. > >It's clear that the roles and job descriptions on the IESG are described by the IESG. It's perfectly reasonable for them to say "this post needs to be eliminated". > >The procedural objections here seem to all be of the form "the IESG should have told the nomcom this when it sent the position descriptions to the Nomcom". Actually, that is one of the comments I made. Another was that the relationship between not filling the slot and the as yet to be determined changes was unclear. My suggestion was to complete the socialization of the changes before interrupting other things. E.g. if Jari had said: "The IESG has consulted with the APPs ADs and with the APPs area WGs and has come to consensus with them that its time to begin the process of closing out the area. As part of this process, we're asking the Nomcom to no longer consider the APP slot vacancy open and to not fill it. We expect to have more complete details on this process within the next month or so as we decide how to handle the remaining groups and workload." I'd go - "OK - thoughtful and complete. They have a plan. This is one step". Instead what he said was: "...So we are starting to think about reorganizing the areas a bit,..." [Yup there was a whole lot more, but that was the indication that there was no plan and that the process was only just beginning.] and followed with >Now consider the timing. > >It's October. The new AD (if selected) will be added to the IESG in March, and will be selected for a period of 2 years (unless he resigns). In July, there would not have been a procedural issue with this request at all. > >So - we're talking about a lead time of 5 months here, and having a procedural tizzy because the lead time isn't 8 months. For something that (if the person remains on the IESG for 2 years) will have effect 29 months from now. That's not really it at all. If there's a plan and consensus to close out the area, that sounds like it might be a good idea (with more details). Unfortunately, that's not what the record says. In any event, at a bare minimum, we've got an AD around for another 17 months in that area who is going to have to find something else useful to do if everything gets moved. >I'm in a rapidly changing organziation during my day work. When a decision on structure was reached, it got *implemented* on a timeframe shorter than the nomcom getting its brief and the IESG saying that "you might want to consider this point". > >The timeframes we're dealing with for changes in the IETF have lost touch with the needs of the world the IETF operates in; the world has become considerably faster, and the IETF has not. What you've described is a hierarchically, top-down managed for profit company where the line employees have no say in the organizational structure. Do you really think that model applies to the current bottom-up consensus driven IETF structure? If you're suggesting changes along that line for the IETF, then that's a much longer and probably more fraught conversation that the current instance. Things take time because consensus takes time. To change that, we'd have to give the various ADs and I* Chairs and even WG chairs a lot more power to make broader decisions than I think we've currently granted them. >I, for one, welcome the signs of change. If the change requested makes sense, do it. >Procedures exist to make the organization work better. Not the other way round. Procedures sometimes exist to constrain the "management" from doing things that the "employees" would find problematic. The other use for procedures is to get pre-agreement (consensus or whatever appropriate) on what can be done when and by who and how. When those are brushed aside, good and proper reasons should be necessary and inquiring into those reasons shouldn't be met with suspicion and disdain. In any event, given the email from the Nomcom chair, this inquiry is moot and the non-appointment of the APPs AD is a fait accompli. Later, Mike >Harald > >