Hi Brian, Just on the generic issues you raised (i.e. not on anima)... On 26/12/14 18:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote: >> The IESG proposes >> to experiment with this approach initially by shifting to out-of-area ADs for >> RADEXT, DIME, LMAP, and ANIMA, perhaps with another few WGs to follow. > > I have some doubt whether this approach should ever be considered > normal, rather than exceptional. If it becomes considered normal, it > would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas, > are often incorrect. Or that the area definitions need re-examination, or that cross-area work has become common for some other reason. At minimum, if we have this tool, and if it's overused, we have another way to detect that something needs re-adjusting. In fact, I think it'll be more useful than that myself. > There is also a practical aspect - meeting scheduling. At the moment, > a rough-and-ready rule is: never schedule more than 2 sessions for the > same Area at the same time, which guarantees that an AD is available > for each sessions. With numerous out-of-area ADs, this aspect of > scheduling will become very complicated. Actually that's gotten better with the new tooling that handles conflicts reasonably well. And in most cases where we've mentioned possible out-of-area ADs I think we'd likely already have considered the same conflict. Cheers, S. > I have a specific concern about considering an out-of-area AD for > ANIMA. It's a new WG and the current AD invested heavily in the > chartering process. I would be very concerned about changing that > before the WG is well established. > > Brian > >