David,
as you know, I have been very worried about the size of the IESG too. And
I've even used that argument in the discussion of some other suggestions
that would add people to the IESG - I did not see that the benefits of
those other proposals were higher than the costs.
But - I think this proposal is addressing a well known problem; the
division of groups between APPS and Transport hasn't made sense for at
least the last 10 years, and the realignment suggested makes the divisions
a little more reasonable. When people's thoughts align to the point where
doing a sensible thing to this problem is possible, it is my opinion that
it is time to do it.
Once Brian's PESCI group gets off the ground, and if they ask for my input,
I'll certainly recommend that they recommend to the community that they do
drastic surgery to the effective group size of the IESG - the -twolevel-
draft was one suggestion for how that could be done.
But adding another area can be done NOW, and (in my opinion) won't delay
the solution to the "size" problem - which (in my opinion) has to be solved
anyway.
In my opinion, the benefits outweigh the costs.
Harald
pgp2SAPDJbyBy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf