that specific point did not come up (as I recall) in the BOF discussions where the question of the specific callout of ADs & WG Chairs was brought up but it does seem to me to be a legit worry Scott > On Feb 17, 2018, at 8:16 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --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 > > > >
