Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote:
...
III. MERGING OF UPPER LAYER PROTOCOL AREAS
... the IESG is proposing to merge the APP, RAI, and TSV areas into one
combined Network Applications (NAPP) area. From March 2015-March 2016,
this combined area would be overseen by the five remaining ADs from
APP, RAI, and TSV, with some redistribution of WG shepherding
responsibilities among them to balance workloads. DISPATCH, TSVWG,
and APPSAWG would continue to function much as they currently do.
I've been trying to think of a nice way to say this, but there isn't one.
I couldn't think of a nice-way, either... :^(
I think this is a terrible idea. It would create a very unwieldy structure,
effectively an IESG within the IESG.
+1
It would only take about a week for the 5 ADs concerned to decide that
they need weekly coordination meetings; after a month they'd discover
the need for a well-defined chair for those meetings.
Or...
They wouldn't discover this need. :^(
Depending on the individuals, the result might be a power bloc within the
IESG.
(Actually, I don't worry about that...)
Given that there might also be a mini-power bloc formed by 3 Routing ADs,
the dynamics of the IESG would be very different and chairing it could
become rather challenging.
<narrative-scribe-hat = On>
There is in fact a lot of cooperation between the two ADs in an area.
Technically, I suppose this could lead to a "power-block" where one of
them places a DISCUSS and the other supports it -- but that simply isn't
happening.
This kind of cooperation has been improving quite a bit over the last
five years: whenever one of the ADs in an area is absent from a telechat,
the other knows enough to advise how to proceed on the documents in
question. I can't imagine how this will get easier with three ADs to an
area.
(Nonetheless, I support the IESG choosing to experiment with three
RTG ADs for one year.)
But going from two to five in the yet-unnamed APPS area worries me.
<narrative-scribe-hat = Off>
I fully appreciate the RAI/Apps issue. There's clear overlap and a lot has
changed since RAI was created. I agree you have to do something there.
I could support that also as an experiment. I'm less sure it'll work
well; but so long as it's an experiment we can back out of, I'm OK.
However, the merge with Transport is technically strange. Agreed, there
are four or five WGs in Transport that could equally well be in Apps, and
there are some in RAI that could equally well be in Transport.
Those are things the IESG should just-do.
But beyond that, I just don't see the synergy.
<narrative-scribe-hat = On>
I well remember IESG discussion over the problem of finding TSV ADs.
IMHO, we've made progress, and no longer give the NOMCOM impossible
job descriptions. I worry that merging TSV into APPS may be an attempt
to solve a problem which is no longer there.
I worry even more that this attempt at merging will generate another
impossible job-description for a larger area.
<narrative-scribe-hat = Off>
(Where we need synergy, we know how to create it, e.g. the DART WG.)
Wouldn't it be better to rebalance by moving a few groups from RAI to
Transport, and the solve the RAI/Apps problem on its own?
+1
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>