Hi -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "'IETF Discuss'" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 3:48 PM
Subject: Size of IESG, Number of Areas (Was: CHANGE THE JOB)
I just rooted out a graph of IESG size over a number of years
that I created for a similar discussion 7 years ago.
As far as I know, today's numbers are identical to 2006, since
no Areas have been created or deleted and we have two ADs/Area.
...
I wonder whether in this discussion we've been neglecting
a significant aspect of how the workload has changed. In
reviewing and DISCUSSing work, the ADs (and directorates)
need to take into account a corpus of work (not just RFCs)
which grows ever larger. For example, a MIB review seems
to be a lot more work now than it was twenty years ago, in
large part because there is a much larger body of established
practice to be checked for potential conflicts.
If indeed a large time sink is the time needed to DISCUSS
work, increasing the size of the IESG won't help. Having
multiple IESGs might give better scalability. Even splitting
the current IESG into two (one AD from each area into each
IESG) might provide better parallelism. Of course, doing
this would require us to finally disabuse ourselves of any
notions that "the" IESG really understands everything or is
in total control of anything.
Just a thought.
Randy