Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

[Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>]

I'm in favor of 1/

3/, again, seems contradictory. The status quo is that it disappears. 
Continuing it without a fixed end date is to subversively result in 2/ 
without a clear charter definition and Nomcom participation.

To be specific, I don't think 3/ should be on the table, at least not 
without a finite extension limit. However, what do we expect to change 
in the next N months? Will all the current groups complete their 
mission? Will no new groups want to be in this area? If we can't stick 
to a deadline now, what makes us think we can stick to one in N months?

Joe

>  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.