On 9/21/05 3:14 PM, "David Kessens" <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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.
That's not true - I raised the possibility of eliminating
areas entirely. That would improve the agility of the
organization to adapt to change more generally.
I'm unclear on what specific problems you think that adding
a new area would introduce. I'm not sure how big "too big"
is in this case. I've been involved with a number of
consensus-based organizations in the past, and have found that
the decision-making process breaks down at between 20
and 25 participants. However, that's a specific decision
model with specific reasons for failure, and I wouldn't
expect an organization with a different decision model to
fail at the same place or for the same reasons. What do
you think will happen if the IESG grows by two?
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf