I thought it was interesting that there were 8 areas at the time RFC 2418 was written and I couldn't see anything in the 50% of it I read that hinted at 8 being a problem (and there are only 7 now I believe?). The way I see it is that in many ways everyone subscribed to this list is an AD for the IESG "area". This means at all times there are hundreds of very smart people who love finding and pointing out mistakes focused intently on the IESG (some may be drooling), waiting to pounce. This to me feels like sufficient oversight and makes me fairly sure that an IESG breakdown would be rapidly (and violently) rectified. (the overseers to overseen ratio here is thousands to one). The areas are a little trickier because an AD has x amount of time they can spend doing AD stuff and once that is used anything left unattended is delayed until the AD returns with more time. Whether this time is taken up by one WG or fourteen will vary based on the neediness of an areas WG's and whatever x equals for that particular AD. Provided there are times when AD's do reach critical mass then I'd say adding more nodes is smart load balancing - unless we can just increase their capacity by adding processors and RAM... ;) I've been a part of this list for less than a year so my opinion has little history or context. Thanks. Nick. > > If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this > > would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area > > would be one way to reduce this could be one solution. > > I agree that there would be value in looking at this question. But I > don't believe creation of the new area should be gated on this. > > Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf