I am very worried about the discussion on the new proposed area. Most mails are along the line that it sounds "nice" to have a new area formed. Forming a new area comes at a cost for the IETF, while there are also potential benefits. I believe it is very important for the community to consider and understand the costs versus the benefits for the creation of a new area. As for the benefits, I see that we would give more well deserved attention to an important area of work within the IETF. In addition, it should help to alleviate overload within the transport area. However, there are also many costs associated with this proposal, among others: - we need two more people out of the community who are going to spend a lot of their time on the administrative side of our organization instead of producing real work for the IETF. - the nomcom will need to do more work to appoint more ADs. - IETF documents will receive more scrutiny in the IESG. While this could be considered a good thing, there has been a significant amount of backlash in the community that enough is enough. I for one believe that we currently already provide enough review, and possibly already too much. - Management research has shown that optimal group sizes are in general quite a bit smaller than the current IESG. In fact, I see already significant strains within the IESG due to our group size. For example, we have a hard time to find a time, date and location for our retreats that work for all of our members. The definition of "A hard time" is that we spend significant amount of time trying to find a date and time that works for all of us. Other examples in terms of meetings where we all have to attend is a conference call regarding an appeal. We spend time on checking out who is actually present during an IESG call. We have issues with conference calls where somebody causes an echo on the conference system. The more people attend, the more time it takes to debug the problem. We send mail among each other, the more members we have the more mail we will receive and the more time we will need to read and respond to IESG internal mails. The more we specialize the function of areas, the more inter-area coordination will be needed. We have discussions about drafts and many other issues during the telechats, the more people we have the more time we will spend on these discussions. Adding two more ADs has the potential to make this quite a bit worse as our group size is already in the territory of too large to operate efficiently. Two more ADs will bring us yet another step closer to the tipping point of where we will only be busy among ourselves instead of serving the community. I guess it comes as no surprise that I have serious issues with this proposal. While the idea sounds nice, the operational details will cause us more pain than it provides benefits. An IESG that doesn't operate efficiently is not in the benefit of the IETF. I believe that many of the benefits of a new area can be had without adding a new area. Alternatives could be to create a special attention area towards Real Time Applications within the Application area with one of the two ADs in the Applications area specializing on such applications. Another approach could be to do serious surgery on how the IESG operates to make it a more scalable group. I believe it is very dangerous to add an area before addressing the issues associated with a larger IESG as it will get ever harder to make such changes while our group grows less efficient by piecemeal fixes instead of looking at the larger issue of how the IESG as a whole can become more efficient to the benefit of the IETF. David Kessens --- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf