Thanks for this important graph information (it should be listed in one of the IETF web pages), I think it should be documented in a I-D for General Area works, still our IETF General Area outputs is weak in my opinion which makes our/my decisions/ideas not final of what happend and what should happen, I would blame management of not encouraging WGs in the General Area for this problem. However, IMHO, the number of WGs is not the important cause of problem for AD, it is the WGs' behavior, performance, re-chartering, milestones/output (i.e. are they in the authorised milestones) and management, that makes the larger input-time problem for any AD or even any IETF participant. Some IETF WGs still need more efficiency to do their job independently on time. AB On 10/19/13, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/IESGsize.pdf > > At that time about 125 WGs were chartered. Today we still have > about 125 WGs. > > Regards > Brian >