On 27/12/2014 11:04, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> For maximum flexibility just make "areas" much more informal, or even
> drop the concept completely. Instead just dole out "ADs" (now just
> plain IESG members) to WGs as the IESG sees fit, perhaps in consultation
> with WG chairs. For new WGs, the sponsoring IESG members would be it,
> and if there isn't one then one should be assigned (or the WG should not
> be chartered).
>
> This would allow the IESG to balance its members' load as the IESG sees
> fit.
Interesting - I think this is free from the danger of a fragmented IESG
that I mentioned in my "Mashing areas" reply, if it could be made to
work. Maybe the Areas could survive as AD specializations, but not
as globs of WGs.
Brian
>
> And it helps a bit with scheduling: since ADs can't be in two meetings
> at the same time, one way to ensure non-conflicting meeting slot
> assignments for N WGs is to have one AD for all N. :)
>
> I rather like this. IESG members should be generalists who can
> specialize as needed. Specialist reviews are already available from the
> various directorates anyways.
>
> One downside would be less stability for WG/"AD" assignments, but where
> that's seen as disruptive the IESG would -presumably- work hard to keep
> stability.
>
> Anyways, that's my take of what the IESG is saying here: "areas" no
> longer work as an organizing principle. Assuming I read that right, I
> agree.
>
> Nico