Hi, Brian, On 10/24/2014 01:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
" 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
I'm planning to submit -01 with this change: OLD: This document allows the IESG additional flexibility in organizing the IETF's work. It does not make any changes to existing Area structures, and does not argue that assigning more than two Area Directors to an Area is an optimal solution in the long run. NEW: The change described in this document is intended to allow the IESG additional flexibility in organizing the IETF's work. It does not make any changes to existing Area structures, and does not argue that assigning more than two Area Directors to an Area is an optimal solution in the long run. In particular, this change is not intended to increase the size of the IESG significantly. If several Areas will require more than two Area Directors, the IESG should consider investigating alternative ways of organizing the IETF's work. Please let me know if that's headed the wrong direction. And thanks for the feedback. Spencer