--On Saturday, February 17, 2018 06:22 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
<sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> see RFC 8179 (BCP 79) section 1.m
>
> m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": making a
> Contribution, as described above, or in any other way
> acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion
> relating to the IETF Standards Process. Without
> limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a
> Working Group Chair or Area Director constitutes
> "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
> working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
> "Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
> Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.
Scott,
A question about the above, with the hope that it will never
become important. I believe that traditionally any and all ADs
in a particular area are jointly responsible for every WG in
that area, i.e., that splitting WGs in a given area among ADs is
an administrative convenience, not a change of responsibility in
the sense above. Is that still the case or is the above
language a back door effectively creating mini-areas with one AD
each? And, if the latter, should assignments of WGs to ADs be
something that is a bit more transparent than it has been, e.g.,
something that should be part of the review at WG charter time,
subject to review and appeal when changes are made to
responsibility for existing WGs (even if the changes are due to
AD turnover), and even something that should be explicitly
visible to the Nomcom?
thanks,
john
