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.
Yes, implicit in my mentioning the number of WGs in the
Internet area was that they too have a problem.
I am not sure what the optimal ratios are,
but I can make a simple comparisons
In addition to the IETF I also attend ITU-T meetings,
where there is an additional layer of management
Study Group (SG) chair = AD
Working Party (WP) chair
rapporteur (= question chair) = WG chair.
There are 13 SG chairs (just like our IESG),
with between 5 and 24 questions per SG.
These numbers are similar to the IETF situation,
HOWEVER, each SG chair has between 2 and 8 vice-chairs,
up to 4 WPs (each of which has at least one chair and one vice-chair)
and two secretaries (who are full-time employees).
Does that weighty managerial structure make things
flow more smoothly? To an extent, but at a price.
For example, documents produced by a question
must first be presented at the WP plenary and approved,
and then the same document (but with a new number)
must be presented once again at the full SG plenary.
However, the most obvious difference between the two
systems is that it is a rare event to see a SG chair at
a question session. The SG chair function is purely
managerial, since there are so many levels between the
SG chair and the document editors.
I doubt that many of the present IESG would want to
swap jobs with an ITU-T SG chair.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf