One David opines - 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. >> ADs do not have to stop doing useful work - many ADs (and even a >> chair >> or two) have done useful technical work while doing teh AD role - 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. >> I assume you mean 2 more people looking at things >> I'm not sure this will make a significant difference to the flow >> through the IESG which I always found to be more dependent on >> the pickyest AD not the number of ADs - 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. >> imo - the size of the IESG has been more than some would consider >> ideal for quite a while, I do not think that adding two more ADs >> will do additional harm to its functionality - I think the more >> important issue is how the IESG operates & reviews things - maybe >> things have changed since I was on the IESG but in those days >> there were only a few ADs that were consistently active on the >> mailing list when we were discussing "big" issues - a few more >> active folk would actually have helped in those days An IESG that doesn't operate efficiently is not in the benefit of the IETF. >> agreed, but imo, that problem is already there and is >> quite independent of the number of ADs I believe it is very dangerous to add an area before addressing the issues associated with a larger IESG >> fwiw, I disagree with this because I think that the proposal >> will add people who can dedicate more attention to this set >> of WGs and I think that is a good thing - see above, I think >> the optimal size may have been exceeded a while back but >> I think that adding two additional folk would produce >> more positives than negatives at this point Another approach could be to do serious surgery on how the IESG operates to make it a more scalable group. >> I think this should be done (and have proposed some ideas >> in the past) but I expect it to take quite a while and I'd like >> to get focused attention on this (conceptionial) area in the >> meantime Another David opines If we applied much more strict quality, relevance and timeliness measures to the existing IETF load, we would probably get rid of 1/3 to 1/2 of our current activities. And possibly more. >> that is an option, but I expect that the level of IETF work would >> not change much, the work would just be distributed among >> fewer WGs (but I do not doubt that some number of existing WGs >> should be closed for one reason or another) Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf