Ted, Alissa,
Your reasons on why the change is the right one seem to focus primarily on
the IESG mechanics and recruiting. They may be right, but if I may gently
remind you, the areas are composed of much larger groups than the ADs and
candidate ADs. This reorganization needs to make sense for both the IESG and
the broad set of participants and potential participants who use the Area's
organizing principles to guide their work.
I just wanted to say that I for one agree with this. And I think the IESG fully
agrees as well.
I think the other bit pushing this, the number of willing and available
candidates who would work as ADs in that area, is actually more of a question
of AD workload. I know at least two who declined because of the perceived
workload, despite being deeply engaged in the work of the area. I continue
to believe that making changes which improve that aspect of IESG's
organization is going to achieve more flexibility and sustainability than
this sort of reorganization.
I can confirm from my own observations that workload is a key issue for
volunteering to do AD and other work at the IETF. (To be more specific, the
issue is not that people are scared of work, there are lot of people willing to
contribute tremendous amount of effort. The issue is largely the ability to do
that while still also doing something else in your day job.)
Anyway, I also think that we must get both right - the workload *and* the
areas. The areas need to make sense for both the participants (as you point out
above) and the ADs.
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail