Hi Spencer,
On 8 Nov 2014, at 18:34, Spencer Dawkins
<spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi, Brian,
On 10/24/2014 01:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
" Each IETF area is managed by one or more Area Directors (ADs)."
I don't object to the flexibility that this change provides.
However, I do remember being very concerned when RAI was created
that the resulting increase would make the IESG unwieldy and
less efficient (for example, by increasing the number of DISCUSS
ballots to be cleared up; by making discussions of the obvious
take longer; and so on). Which did, in fact, happen.
So I would like to see some sort of aspirational statement in the
draft that the total size of the IESG should be kept as small as
possible. The current 15 (+5 liaison/ex officio) is already
too big IMNSHO.
Regards
Brian
I'm planning to submit -01 with this change:
OLD:
This document allows the IESG additional flexibility in organizing
the IETF's work. It does not make any changes to existing Area
structures, and does not argue that assigning more than two Area
Directors to an Area is an optimal solution in the long run.
NEW:
The change described in this document is intended to allow the
IESG additional flexibility in organizing the IETF's work. It does
not make any changes to existing Area structures, and does
not argue that assigning more than two Area Directors to an
Area is an optimal solution in the long run. In particular, this
change is not intended to increase the size of the IESG
significantly. If several Areas will require more than two Area
Directors, the IESG should consider investigating alternative
ways of organizing the IETF's work.
Please let me know if that's headed the wrong direction.
And thanks for the feedback.
This looks good.
I reviewed the draft and I support the general direction.