" Each IETF area is managed by one or more Area Directors (ADs)." I don't object to the flexibility that this change provides. However, I do remember being very concerned when RAI was created that the resulting increase would make the IESG unwieldy and less efficient (for example, by increasing the number of DISCUSS ballots to be cleared up; by making discussions of the obvious take longer; and so on). Which did, in fact, happen. So I would like to see some sort of aspirational statement in the draft that the total size of the IESG should be kept as small as possible. The current 15 (+5 liaison/ex officio) is already too big IMNSHO. Regards Brian On 25/10/2014 03:04, internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area > Author : Spencer Dawkins > Filename : draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2014-10-24 > > Abstract: > This document removes a limit on the number of Area Directors who > manage an Area in the definition of "IETF Area". This document > updates RFC 2026 (BCP 9) and RFC 2418 (BCP 25). > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >