I thought it was interesting that there were 8 areas at the time RFC 2418
was written and I couldn't see anything in the 50% of it I read that hinted
at 8 being a problem (and there are only 7 now I believe?).
The way I see it is that in many ways everyone subscribed to this list is an
AD for the IESG "area". This means at all times there are hundreds of very
smart people who love finding and pointing out mistakes focused intently on
the IESG (some may be drooling), waiting to pounce. This to me feels like
sufficient oversight and makes me fairly sure that an IESG breakdown would
be rapidly (and violently) rectified. (the overseers to overseen ratio here
is thousands to one).
The areas are a little trickier because an AD has x amount of time they can
spend doing AD stuff and once that is used anything left unattended is
delayed until the AD returns with more time. Whether this time is taken up
by one WG or fourteen will vary based on the neediness of an areas WG's and
whatever x equals for that particular AD. Provided there are times when AD's
do reach critical mass then I'd say adding more nodes is smart load
balancing - unless we can just increase their capacity by adding processors
and RAM... ;)
I've been a part of this list for less than a year so my opinion has little
history or context. Thanks.
Nick.
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
I agree that there would be value in looking at this question. But I
don't believe creation of the new area should be gated on this.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf