Ted, Alissa, > Your reasons on why the change is the right one seem to focus primarily on the IESG mechanics and recruiting. They may be right, but if I may gently remind you, the areas are composed of much larger groups than the ADs and candidate ADs. This reorganization needs to make sense for both the IESG and the broad set of participants and potential participants who use the Area's organizing principles to guide their work. I just wanted to say that I for one agree with this. And I think the IESG fully agrees as well. > I think the other bit pushing this, the number of willing and available candidates who would work as ADs in that area, is actually more of a question of AD workload. I know at least two who declined because of the perceived workload, despite being deeply engaged in the work of the area. I continue to believe that making changes which improve that aspect of IESG's organization is going to achieve more flexibility and sustainability than this sort of reorganization. I can confirm from my own observations that workload is a key issue for volunteering to do AD and other work at the IETF. (To be more specific, the issue is not that people are scared of work, there are lot of people willing to contribute tremendous amount of effort. The issue is largely the ability to do that while still also doing something else in your day job.) Anyway, I also think that we must get both right - the workload *and* the areas. The areas need to make sense for both the participants (as you point out above) and the ADs. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail