On 9/21/05 1:25 AM, "David Kessens" <david.kessens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would have a lot less trouble with the proposal of adding an area if > we would be able to find another one that could be abolished, or > reorganize ourselves in some way or form that would result in no net > addition of Area Directors. I suspect that this ties to the general technical problem of it often being unclear what someone means by "scaling." Something that scales well in one direction may scale very badly in another, and this is probably one of those cases. Rather than focusing exclusively on the problems introduced by growing the IESG we also need to discuss the problems introduced by not growing the IESG, which as someone pointed out include having a large number of working groups per AD. That's a scaling problem, too. I think it generally works well to have the two ADs in a given area have differing broad interests, but I think there's got to be a limit on how large the gap is between their areas of specialization (there does need to be some overlap) and the gap between network transport issues and multimedia application signaling issues really is enormous. There's a structural problem here. A lot of what's going on in the Transport Area today simply isn't transport. Of course RTP is a transport protocol, but SIP and RTSP and so on simply are not, and I think the work required to move those along is too demanding to consider them ancillary to transport (as emergency services would be to the new proposed area). If the same people are to remain responsible for the technical and administrative shepherding of both TCP and telephony signaling, then perhaps it should be the case that we get rid of the area concept entirely, have a fixed size IESG, and have the IESG members be responsible for working groups based on personal interest or obligation or the roll of a 13-sided die. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf