three? there are more areas than that and there are literally hundreds of other standards bodies. all deal with growth the same way, by spinning off affinity groups. case in point, MAWG. Clearly SMTP driven email work should remain in the IETF…. right? ACM… lots and lots of SIGS. IEEE, pick your transmission working group. Folks who insist on keeping IETF “intact” while allowing it to gain WG, areas, and warts like design teams and directorates encourage bloat and inertia. Which leads to an ineffective organization. So optimize the IETF to support a small handful of folks who want to make it easy on themselves at the expense of organizational credibility or not… /bill Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. On 12August2014Tuesday, at 18:53, John R Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> why does it not work for you? are you being prevented from participating in multiple areas? > > Perhaps because he does not have the budget to attend three times as many meetings? > > R's, > John > >>> Actually, that's an old suggestion. It certainly doesn't work for >>> me: I regularly attend meetings in at least three Areas, and am >>> happy to sit in on others to improve my general knowledge.