Hi - > From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "'IETF Discuss'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 3:48 PM > Subject: Size of IESG, Number of Areas (Was: CHANGE THE JOB) > > I just rooted out a graph of IESG size over a number of years > that I created for a similar discussion 7 years ago. > As far as I know, today's numbers are identical to 2006, since > no Areas have been created or deleted and we have two ADs/Area. ... I wonder whether in this discussion we've been neglecting a significant aspect of how the workload has changed. In reviewing and DISCUSSing work, the ADs (and directorates) need to take into account a corpus of work (not just RFCs) which grows ever larger. For example, a MIB review seems to be a lot more work now than it was twenty years ago, in large part because there is a much larger body of established practice to be checked for potential conflicts. If indeed a large time sink is the time needed to DISCUSS work, increasing the size of the IESG won't help. Having multiple IESGs might give better scalability. Even splitting the current IESG into two (one AD from each area into each IESG) might provide better parallelism. Of course, doing this would require us to finally disabuse ourselves of any notions that "the" IESG really understands everything or is in total control of anything. Just a thought. Randy