I agree that this is much improved as an initial plan. Thanks! Ben. > On Jan 16, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > +1, Thanks, --David > > From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:59 AM > To: ietf > Cc: IETF WG Chairs; IETF Announcement List > Subject: Re: Update on the re-organisation steps > > I like this proposal a lot. Thanks for all the efforts in considering and incorporating community feedback. > > Regards, > Mary > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:56 AM, IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has discussed the re-organisation proposal and the comments > that we have received. Thank you for providing feedback! > > We have decided to move forward with two parts of the original proposal, > continue thinking about the third one, and have identified a fourth item that > needs even more focus: > > 1. We are asking the Nomcom to seat a third AD for the Routing Area. The > desired expertise for this position is the same as the one already used for the > position that was open noting an increase in YANG related work in the RTG > Area, and the three working groups that will move from INT to RTG. The > position is for two years. This change addresses changes in work that is > coming to IETF, making the management of this work easier, and it is > anticipated that the work-load for RTG Areas will be normalized as a result. > > 2. We have been implementing a change in how flexible the assignment of > ADs is to areas. This is necessary in order to ensure that we have sufficient > agility to perform our management tasks, and is demonstrated by our > re-assignment of some of the OPS Area working groups to non-OPS ADs > as one of the OPS ADs has taken on broader responsibility for IETF > YANG work. > > As we rebalance, this change will affect how WGs are assigned to ADs, > and this will require changes in how the IESG operates as well as changes > to some of the data tracker tools. > > Note that this is a change with regards to which AD manages specific working > groups. The assignment of working groups to areas will not change as a result > of this procedural change. An AD can be the most suitable manager for the > working group, even when the working group itself remains associated with a > different area. An area is not merely about the ADs managing it, it is also > category of topics on a particular branch of technology, a designation in our > agendas, usually overseen by one or multiple directorates, and scheduled so > as to avoid too many conflicts within the area. Areas are also loose collections > of people working together, and the assignment of ADs to particular working > groups should not have an effect on any of these other aspects of an area. > > This change relates only to agility, and the IESG fully recognises the > observation that a key focus for organizational changes in the IETF should > be in moving work from the IESG to working groups or other entities. > > 3. We have heard the feedback from the community that there is concern > about creating a "mega-area" formed by combining APP, RAI, and TSV. We > will think about this proposal further and will come back either with a > stronger rationale or an alternative plan of more normal-sized areas: any > proposal for structural change will reflect the feedback you have given us. > > 4. With respect to ensuring that AD workload is suitable for a broad of class > contributors willing to take on the task, the IESG clearly needs to take > additional steps. Agility and right area structure helps spread the workload > better across ADs, but other changes are needed. But this is a continuous > process. Our desire to push document approval Comment and Discuss > resolution more to the working groups and e-mail has significantly reduced > the length of our tele chats in recent years, for instance, and we are starting > a project to eliminate errata processing as an AD task. We will return to this > topic with further proposals later as well. > > Jari Arkko for the IESG