Does this mean that we have a non-RAI group? I am confused as to where things fit - are we talking about taking the core SIP protocol, for example, and moving it to RAI and leaving the rest where they are? How about FTP? Where does XMPP fit in all this? Chuck Wegrzyn Margaret Wasserman wrote: > At 12:14 PM -0700 9/21/05, David Kessens wrote: > >>> I have never seen a senior manager in a commercial enterprise >>> to whom 26 subordinates, each responsible for completely distinct >>> disciplines, directly report. >> > [...] > >> Most Areas organize themselves in such a way that each AD manages >> about half of the total. Having said that, even in that case, the >> transport area is still quite large and there is indeed a misfit for >> some working groups. > > > Of course, most WGs have two chairs, so you are right back to the > number that Yaakov has cited. > > I currently have 27 chairs of 14 WGs "reporting" to me in the IETF > context. Fortunately for me, most of these people are extremely > senior and capable of operating independently. I also get a lot of > help from a lot of other people -- you know who you are, and I > appreciate you. > > There is a serious scaling issue here, and I think that it is a much > more serious problem than any scaling issues that we are currently > experiencing due to the size of the IESG. > > I do completely support the creation of the new RAI area, both because > I think it does make sense as a logical area, and because I think that > it will help with AD->WG Chair scaling in the TSV and APPS space. I > do not think that the effect of adding two ADs to the IESG will be > particularly problematic. > > Margaret > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf