On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this is a terrible idea. It would create a very unwieldy structure, > effectively an IESG within the IESG. It would only take about a week for the > 5 ADs concerned to decide that they need weekly coordination meetings; after > a month they'd discover the need for a well-defined chair for those > meetings. The APP, TSV and RAI ADs could do that now. Why would the name change mean that suddenly they'd form a cabal if there hasn't already been demand to form one? I think you overestimate the willingness of ADs to add more meetings to our already busy schedules. And for that matter, the utility of such a move.