Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

PRINCIPLES

Is the order significant? (Ted H) Answer: no.


THREE STEPS

...
A counter-proposal is to flatten the hiearchy. Lose the concept of areas, and consider the IESG as a group of people, each one assigned to the most appropriate task. (Nico) Answer: there is some value in the areas for both management and participants.

We are (mostly) not managers (except reluctantly). And we are not the type of managers that do major reorgs.

There are two main ways to organize a company, by function and by lines of business. Most large companies tend to move from one to the other every 20 years or so. I asked a management specialist why they do it knowing that it will be costly and both approaches have known flaws. The answer being that the underlying objective is to stir things up and get different groups talking to each other.


One constraint on the organization is that quite a few areas of Internet technology require an incredible degree of domain specific expertise. Application oriented folk such as myself really don't much care about routing so long as Olafur and co keep feeding those pigeons. 

We do have some cross-disciplinary groups - the IESG, IAB of course and the Security Directorate.

I think we could do with more but I am not convinced organization gets us there. After all, the fact that DPRIV is in Ops or whatever rather than security really has no bearing on me as a participant.

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]