On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:26 PM, <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > >> Having read this thread..... >> 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. > > > Very nicely put and I agree 100%. Sure, it would have been better all around > if > the conclusion not to staff had been made sooner. But given a choice between > making a change the IESG has concluded is needed and insisting on following > procedures to the last detail, the former overwhelmingly makes more sense. You are both missing the point that if this is a consultative organization, the IESG should have solicited comment and discussion from the wider community before beginning to implement their decision. Comparisons to corporate restructures are irrelevant because corporations are not consultative organizations, nor do they pretend to be. Under US employment law a corporation can reassign jobs for 'at will' employees almost at whim (modulo the WARN act). So far I have seen a lot of chatter attempting to justify the process with no discussion at all about what is driving this change or the urgency for doing so right now.