On 9/21/05 3:14 PM, "David Kessens" <david.kessens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I notice that nobody has really responded with suggestions on how this > could be achieved or with alternatives for my suggestion as there are > obviously many possible variants. That's not true - I raised the possibility of eliminating areas entirely. That would improve the agility of the organization to adapt to change more generally. I'm unclear on what specific problems you think that adding a new area would introduce. I'm not sure how big "too big" is in this case. I've been involved with a number of consensus-based organizations in the past, and have found that the decision-making process breaks down at between 20 and 25 participants. However, that's a specific decision model with specific reasons for failure, and I wouldn't expect an organization with a different decision model to fail at the same place or for the same reasons. What do you think will happen if the IESG grows by two? Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf