Thanks for this important graph information (it should be listed in
one of the IETF web pages), I think it should be documented in a I-D
for General Area works, still our IETF General Area outputs is weak in
my opinion which makes our/my decisions/ideas not final of what
happend and what should happen, I would blame management of not
encouraging WGs in the General Area for this problem.
However, IMHO, the number of WGs is not the important cause of problem
for AD, it is the WGs' behavior, performance, re-chartering,
milestones/output (i.e. are they in the authorised milestones) and
management, that makes the larger input-time problem for any AD or
even any IETF participant. Some IETF WGs still need more efficiency to
do their job independently on time.
AB
On 10/19/13, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/IESGsize.pdf
At that time about 125 WGs were chartered. Today we still have
about 125 WGs.
Regards
Brian