On 19/02/2016 19:22, Jari Arkko wrote: > Andrew, Michael, > > Up-leveling your discussion a bit. > > John had suggested a comprehensive review, and I think he has a point. > > Figure out what works and what doesn’t, identify problems that exist. I think that is a very important step. The IASA/IAOC itself came out of a careful problem analysis and a long debate. While I doubt if we need to go that far (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/problem/charter/), a problem analysis that those interested agree on would be a good start. Maybe on its own list to avoid distracting several thousand people here? (Incidentally the archive of the problem WG list seems to have gone missing; all I can find in the IETF archive is carefully archived spam.) Brian > From my perspective, the IAOC setup and membership has been quite stable, so I’m not sure it is a problem. Of course, if we make a change, we shouldn’t make it unstable either, but I don’t see any such proposals on the table. > > Up-leveling a bit further. This whole discussion is about the organisational aspects. If we do John’s comprehensive review, I want everyone to remember that there are other aspects. As an example — and I think I mentioned in some e-mail already — the workload for the IAOC and the team (IAD etc) has increased quite a bit recently for various reasons, and that is also something we need to address. That specific topic is on our retreat agenda for May to talk about, but of course we still need to assess other questions as well. Another example is the specific ways that the IAOC goes about its business, such as meeting selections, and are there areas where for instance better documentation would be needed. > > Jari >