On 12/26/14 1:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If it becomes considered normal, it would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas, are often incorrect.
Do note the explanation for this in our original message, as I think you have an embedded assumption that's at least non-obvious:
There are numerous instances where the constituency of a WG exists in a particular IETF area, but the most appropriate AD for that work happens to be in a different area, or where the ADs in the area are simply overloaded and an AD outside of the area is perfectly capable of managing the work.
To expand a bit: We do think having WGs in particular Areas is useful, and we think generally we're getting our assignment of WGs to particular Areas correct: At the scale of an Area, it is generally quite obvious and natural that the kind of work we want done in a WG falls to a particular IETF constituency, and those folks are normally in a particular Area.
However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a "correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or Area) of expertise is always the best person to manage any particular WG. There are obvious examples like APP WGs that, while really needing the constituency of the APP area to come to consensus on the work, really are better coordinated by a SEC AD. But there are also examples of ADs like (to take an easy example) Spencer, who has perfectly good layer-3 *and* layer-4 chops, and for any given WG he might be the ideal AD, whether it's an INT WG or an TSV WG. Just because we have Spencer be the responsible AD for an INT WG doesn't mean we've incorrectly assigned him to TSV (his protestations notwithstanding). He may be a perfect fit for the overall guiding of the TSV Area, and having him think broadly about those issues might be exactly what we want him to do. But for a given INT WG we might be perfectly comfortable that the Area-wide issues will be well-handled by the participants in the WG, and Spencer's skills at AD and his particular expertise might be the best fit for shepherding that WG's work through the process.
We think the current way we've been doing assignments are a bit too rigid. It *should* be normal for us to assign specific WGs to the best AD for that WG, even if the best AD for the Area happens to be a different AD. That flexibility should let us redistribute the load as needed, and hopefully make it easier for the NomCom to fill slots.
pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478