In thinking about the issues of temporary areas generally and
this one in particular, I've got pair of concerns that have not
been mentioned so far:
(i) There is always the possibility that Nomcom selections and
decisions will change the balance of consensus of the IESG on
any particular issue, especially an organizational one. If
there are plausible odds that a "new" IESG would reach a
significantly different decision than the "old" one, the
decision should, if possible, probably be left to the "new"
group, rather than sticking them with sorting out the
implications of a decision with which they might not agree. I
don't know what to suggest about this at this stage, but I think
it would be good for the community to give general guidance to
the IESG that, when possible, the period between the last IETF
meeting of one year and the first one of the next is not the
ideal time to be making organizational decisions.
(ii) If a temporary area extends for more than a year, and one
or more of the associated ADs comes up for renomination, the
Nomcom has a dilemma:
-- they can evaluate possible candidates knowing that
some AD will need to do double duty (in two areas), both
with regard to competencies and with regard to available
time.
-- they can ignore the temporary area entirely, assuming
that their responsibility is only to deal with the
permanent areas and that the IESG will just have to sort
out any consequences, reorganizing itself if necessary.
Of the two, the second is probably preferable, but neither is
really ideal. I suspect it argues against long-lived temporary
areas.
john