Hi, John,
On Sat, 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?
I believe that the answer to this question is "it depends". OPS is explicitly two areas joined at the hip for Nomcom purposes (the position descriptions swap every year, depending on who's being reviewed). On the other hand, there are procedures that explicitly invoke the Transport ADs as a set (IIRC, when the RFC Editor asks for AD approval for changes in AUTH49, the e-mail goes to tsv-ads@xxxxxxxx, and although I've never tested this theory, I believe either Mirja or I could respond).
In general, I'd say "somewhere in the middle between those extremes".
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?
I understand the concern, I believe, but I'm not understanding what this means in practice.
- I joined the IESG two months after Wes Eddy stepped down, and during that time, Martin Stiemerling had all the TSV working groups because he was the only TSV AD.
- When I joined, we divided the work as evenly as possible, and filtered that through what we each thought we were knowledgeable about.
- When Mirja Kuehlewind replaced Martin, we looked at the existing division between Spencer and Martin, and traded working groups based on our own interests, and whether Mirja was an active contributor in a working group (which likely had the biggest impact on our allocation). We traded two working groups in each direction.
My point is that I think if we had gotten any of this wrong, it could have been appealed, but I'm not sure what else needed to happen, that din't happen.
Spencer
