three? there are more areas than that and there are literally hundreds of
other standards bodies.
all deal with growth the same way, by spinning off affinity groups. case in
point, MAWG. Clearly SMTP driven email work should
remain in the IETF…. right? ACM… lots and lots of SIGS. IEEE, pick
your transmission working group.
Folks who insist on keeping IETF “intact” while allowing it to gain WG, areas,
and warts like design teams and directorates encourage bloat
and inertia. Which leads to an ineffective organization. So optimize the
IETF to support a small handful of folks who want to make it easy on themselves
at the expense of organizational credibility or not…
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 12August2014Tuesday, at 18:53, John R Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>
wrote:
why does it not work for you? are you being prevented from participating
in multiple areas?
Perhaps because he does not have the budget to attend three times as many
meetings?
R's,
John
Actually, that's an old suggestion. It certainly doesn't work for
me: I regularly attend meetings in at least three Areas, and am
happy to sit in on others to improve my general knowledge.