Bill Strahm wrote:
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any "new" IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
I think this is a seductively reasonable-sounding-yet-misguided rephrasing
of the issue.
Sub-IP as an Area ought to be evaluated on its applicability to the
IETF. The IESG support (generally quite well and unthanked) the goals
of the IETF. If Sub-IP as an Area makes sense for the IETF, then (and
only then) does the question arise of whether to add more IESG members.
Let's not get the order reversed.
cheers,
gja
--
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au