I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any "new" IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help
overall effectiveness, or make it lower
If the consensus of the IESG is that adding more members would make them
less effective go with the victim/temporary route.
If the consensus of the IESG is that adding two members would make the
IESG more effective, lets look at making it permanent, or have a place
to put the extra members when the "temporary" area shuts down.
In other words what makes that IESG more effective
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG] On
Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:22 PM
To: ietf(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG
Subject: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
All,
On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of
the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html
We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta
expressing that they want the area to be long(er) lived. This will be
part of our input.
But we need/want to hear from the IETF community. So please express your
opionion (and the reasoning behind it) asap on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, but
certainly before Thursday Dec 12th 10am US Eastern time.
As expressed in the above posting (with data points and discussion
included),
the 3 choices for the SUB-IP Area 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.
The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is
divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo
(alternative 3).
If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not
yet
said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org before Thursday.
Thank you!
Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG
(please repost this message where appropriate)