On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:28:22AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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). > > 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. Exactly. (I share your concerns about IESGs-within-IESGs.) And WGs could participate (via feedback) in the "AD" assignment process. If you're not happy with your WG's AD, ask for a new one. Hopefully this wouldn't happen much. The nomcom's work might get harder, or easier -- I'm not sure. If there's a vacancy to be filled: look for a generalist, unless there's a particular specialty that the IESG is badly in need of. Again, if too much structure is the problem (the WG square pegs not fitting in the "area" circular slots), then reducing the amount of structure seems likely better than adding structure. Nico --