Hi Spencer, > On 8 Nov 2014, at 18:34, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. This looks good. I reviewed the draft and I support the general direction.