FWIW, I fully support creation of this new area. This is based both on
the contents of Brian's note (though I agree with some of the followup
about naming and what really goes in), and on private discussions I
had with some of the ADs in Paris when the idea was still a proposal.
I firmly believe that one of keys to getting the IETF to work better
is to get more focus on key issues earlier in the process (e.g., WG
formation, early architectural/sanity review, etc.). That happens best
when there is active mananagement of the WGs as early as possible,
e.g, when AD's are to some extent following the mailing lists in real
time.
One of the key benefits of the proposal is that it adds more IESG
day-to-day focus to individual WGs. The reality today is that not
enough of that is happening. :-(
Decreasing the WG-to-AD ratio is a good thing to be doing, both for
the WGs and for the individual ADs who are constantly juggling too
many demands.
While I do see that increasing the size of the IESG has some
downsides, IMO, the benefits outweigh the downsides.
Still, having said that,
john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com writes:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
I agree that there would be value in looking at this question. But I
don't believe creation of the new area should be gated on this.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf