Yaakov,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:58:12AM +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Most of the comments have questioned the "cost" of adding
2 ADs to the lucky number 13.
However, there are a other large numbers to consider.
For example 26 and 24 - the number of WGs in the transport
and Internet areas, respectively.
I have never seen a senior manager in a commercial enterprise
to whom 26 subordinates, each responsible for completely distinct
disciplines, directly report.
Decreasing the number of WGs per area to a number that
can be reasonably managed and technically lead by the AD
is one of the advantages of the proposal.
Most Areas organize themselves in such a way that each AD manages
about half of the total. Having said that, even in that case, the
transport area is still quite large and there is indeed a misfit for
some working groups.
I do support a reorganization to address this problem. However, I
believe that we should try to do this reorganization without adding
more ADs to the IESG. Nobody has seriously looked at this option.
What we are proposing now is the traditional way how organizations
keep growing in size as we all get focussed on adding features to
solve our problems instead of balancing scarce resources and reducing
our coverage in areas that have grown less important or are relatively
small but are still served by two ADs.
For example, I proposed that we could also add the Real-Time
Applications to the Applications area with a new updated charter to
reflect this change (Or add the Applications Area to the Real-Time
Applications area). That way, all these groups will be under the same
roof too without having to increase the number of ADs. Other solutions
are possible too, like creating this area but for example reducing the
number of ADs in other areas or combining them. I can even think of a
few variants where the Ops & Mgmt area gets some additional work at
the Mgmt side as we are for example already quite active with
infrastructure applications like Radius. We could in that case become
the Ops & Infrastructure Area.
I notice that nobody has really responded with suggestions on how this
could be achieved or with alternatives for my suggestion as there are
obviously many possible variants. Is it perhaps easier to let the
bureaucracy grow instead of looking seriously at ways to make us
operate more efficient ?
And growing before we have the structure in place to actually allow
this growth seems real risky: this is the perfect way to get to a
situation of total gridlock. This is what we have been doing in the
past and it hasn't worked so well. It is time to stop this.
And this will still leave a manageable 15 members in the IESG.
First of all I don't believe that 15 members in the IESG is manageable
in any way or form. In fact, I believe that 13 members is already not
manageable.
Note that the next proposal for an additional area is just around the
corner: the Internet area has a very heavy load of working groups as
well and the next thing that could easily be imagined is a Mobility
Area which also sounds very reasonable.
Are we going to tell them then that they cannot have their own area
while we just added another one for Real-Time Applications ?
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf