If that's the attitude we take, how did we get to three Routing ADs? /me ducks > On 25 Oct 2022, at 11:28 am, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hiya, > > On 25/10/2022 00:54, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> FWIW - +1 to reducing load on the ART ADs. Three seems appropriate, >> if we can find reasonable candidates. > I'd start from a not-strongly-held sort-of opposite opinion > that the rest of the IESG ought be helping out if/as needed > due to an overload of one area.(*) But, mostly, I'd want to > know what the current IESG think of such an idea before any > attempt to change the numbers or roles of ADs was attempted. > > Cheers, > S. > > (*) By "overload" I mean having too many WGs or too many that > impose extra work on an AD. If we wanted to consider parental > leave and vicissitudes of life issues and their affect on the > IESG and AD load, that ought be a separate discussion. That'd > also be a good and worthwhile discussion, because things just > do happen that the IESG wasn't so well setup to handle whilst > I served. That's a different discussion but also one I reckon > ought be lead by the current IESG. > <OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc> -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
