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