Option 2 grows the IESG by 1 to 2 ADs. I concur with sediments that this will likely make the IESG less effective, hence I oppose option 2. And as Option 3 has a high chance of becoming option 1 (become temporary things have a tendency to become permanent), I dislike it as well. I favor option 1.
Kurt At 01:21 PM 12/9/2002, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] before >Thursday. > >Thank you! > > Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG > >(please repost this message where appropriate)
