On 27/12/2014 11:04, Nico Williams wrote:
For maximum flexibility just make "areas" much more informal, or even
drop the concept completely. Instead just dole out "ADs" (now just
plain IESG members) to WGs as the IESG sees fit, perhaps in consultation
with WG chairs. For new WGs, the sponsoring IESG members would be it,
and if there isn't one then one should be assigned (or the WG should not
be chartered).
This would allow the IESG to balance its members' load as the IESG sees
fit.
Interesting - I think this is free from the danger of a fragmented IESG
that I mentioned in my "Mashing areas" reply, if it could be made to
work. Maybe the Areas could survive as AD specializations, but not
as globs of WGs.
Brian
And it helps a bit with scheduling: since ADs can't be in two meetings
at the same time, one way to ensure non-conflicting meeting slot
assignments for N WGs is to have one AD for all N. :)
I rather like this. IESG members should be generalists who can
specialize as needed. Specialist reviews are already available from the
various directorates anyways.
One downside would be less stability for WG/"AD" assignments, but where
that's seen as disruptive the IESG would -presumably- work hard to keep
stability.
Anyways, that's my take of what the IESG is saying here: "areas" no
longer work as an organizing principle. Assuming I read that right, I
agree.
Nico