> Note that the next proposal for an additional area is just around the > corner: the Internet area has a very heavy load of working > groups as well and the next thing that could easily be > imagined is a Mobility Area which also sounds very reasonable. Yes, implicit in my mentioning the number of WGs in the Internet area was that they too have a problem. I am not sure what the optimal ratios are, but I can make a simple comparisons In addition to the IETF I also attend ITU-T meetings, where there is an additional layer of management Study Group (SG) chair = AD Working Party (WP) chair rapporteur (= question chair) = WG chair. There are 13 SG chairs (just like our IESG), with between 5 and 24 questions per SG. These numbers are similar to the IETF situation, HOWEVER, each SG chair has between 2 and 8 vice-chairs, up to 4 WPs (each of which has at least one chair and one vice-chair) and two secretaries (who are full-time employees). Does that weighty managerial structure make things flow more smoothly? To an extent, but at a price. For example, documents produced by a question must first be presented at the WP plenary and approved, and then the same document (but with a new number) must be presented once again at the full SG plenary. However, the most obvious difference between the two systems is that it is a rare event to see a SG chair at a question session. The SG chair function is purely managerial, since there are so many levels between the SG chair and the document editors. I doubt that many of the present IESG would want to swap jobs with an ITU-T SG chair. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf