Does this mean that we have a non-RAI group? I am confused as to where
things fit - are we talking about taking the core SIP protocol, for
example, and moving it to RAI and leaving the rest where they are? How
about FTP? Where does XMPP fit in all this?
Chuck Wegrzyn
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/21/05, David Kessens wrote:
I have never seen a senior manager in a commercial enterprise
to whom 26 subordinates, each responsible for completely distinct
disciplines, directly report.
[...]
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.
Of course, most WGs have two chairs, so you are right back to the
number that Yaakov has cited.
I currently have 27 chairs of 14 WGs "reporting" to me in the IETF
context. Fortunately for me, most of these people are extremely
senior and capable of operating independently. I also get a lot of
help from a lot of other people -- you know who you are, and I
appreciate you.
There is a serious scaling issue here, and I think that it is a much
more serious problem than any scaling issues that we are currently
experiencing due to the size of the IESG.
I do completely support the creation of the new RAI area, both because
I think it does make sense as a logical area, and because I think that
it will help with AD->WG Chair scaling in the TSV and APPS space. I
do not think that the effect of adding two ADs to the IESG will be
particularly problematic.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf