----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 7:24 PM > > What you are suggesting here is a mini-area with > > around 5 working groups. Doesn’t this make it worse? > > Of current working groups I'd count 9.5, not 5, > Appsawg .5, Httpbis, Hybi, Json, Urn, Websec, Rtcweb, Webpush, Jose, Oauth > > And perhaps some of OPS work, too. While a count of WGs is one measure of the load on an AD, another, suggested by reports from the IESG itself, would be of how many I-Ds are being handled. Thus a WG like v6ops, which might have 60 I-Ds on the go, could be an order of magnituude harder to manage that appsawg, which limited itself to six. This could be quantified by running a script against tools, to list for each WG how many I-Ds it has adopted and how many others are currently listed as not yet adopted; and a trend of this over time might be a measure of how well a WG is coping. The length of time an I-D is in the system would be another measure of the load on management so another script could measure how many months it is from the date when an I-D was adopted to the present date, summing all the values for a given WG. Again, a trend over time could be a measure of how well a WG is faring. Tom Petch > > >