At 09:55 PM 12/4/2002 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The options seem to be:
1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP (and/or
other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the
remaining WGs.
2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors
3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary,
ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting
ADs to continue the effort that Bert & Scott have been doing. But maybe
give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors,
normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise
live.
After reading through the discussions and thinking about the IETF needs as
a whole, I want to propose a 4th alternative (which is a merge of the opt 2
and 3):
a) Sunset the area with a final decision point as 12/31/2003 and a closing
date of 03/01/2004. No further WGs will be chartered in this area.
b) Ask the Nomcom to appoint 1 area director not from the current set of
ADs for a term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03.
I think this approach would accomplish two things: 1) The area would be
legitimized for the period of operation and that would bring it under
normal IETF procedures. 2) We (the IETF) would have an opportunity to
apprentice/train a new AD in a lower stress/load environment than the usual
area. In Dec 03, if there is sufficient reason to continue the area, the
NOMCOM can act to continue the appointment or to appoint another or other
ADs as well as more fully define the charter. If not, the area can close
in March.
Mike