--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 20:59 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
I'd say 0) figure out if APPs is really closing then 1)
figure out which groups need to go where, then 2) drop an AD.
Again, nothing is insoluble, but this feels rushed and
possibly not well thought through for implications and
unintended consequences.
Having just disagreed about principles, I think the above is
probably the right conclusion. We really do not need to argue
about whether one-year appointments are possible because, if the
IESG decides to eliminate an area or AD slot and the relevant
ADs are so attached to the jobs that one or more is willing to
resign for the good of the community and to free herself from a
non-existent position, I suggest that we have far greater
problems than the number of years for which a Nomcom can make an
appointment.
Again, I think that reevaluating the Apps Area is a good idea.
There have been years when I've thought that we should
periodically sunset and reevaluate every area and its
relationship to others. My issue here is just about whether the
sequencing and timing of the present plan is optimal for the
Area, the relevant WGs, future work that might come to the IETF
if the climate is right, and the IETF generally.
john