Sent from my iPad
On 21 Dec 2014, at 20:26, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Stewart,
I agree with the principle of this draft and agree that the IESG should
have the flexibility to structure the size of areas and the set the number
of ADs per area at an appropriate level.
Thanks.
I do have a concern that when the number of ADs falls to one as there
can be issues of conflict of interest that need technical expertise to
resolve. There is also the issue of there being no natural AD for IETF
participants to turn to in such circumstances. It would be useful if
the proposed BCP gave a little guidance to cover such circumstances
such as considering the, perhaps temporary, merging of areas so
that there were three responsible ADs rather than just one.
You mention one factor, but there are others, such as having someone to talk
to, ability to deal with events like someone being sick or on vacation, and
so on. Yet we’ve had one AD areas. And most ADs tend to have multiple areas
of expertise from what I can see, even if their primary expertise is on one
area. I think the IETF and the IESG are generally aware of these tradeoffs
and issues. Anyway, we are not considering the creation of additional
single-AD areas at this time :-)
Jari
Jari
Yes, there are so many good reasons why it is useful for there to be at least 2
ADs to an area.
Regarding the creation of additional single-AD areas, I am puzzled because your
recent public message to Nomcom stated that you wished to reduce APPs to a
single AD. Has this position changed?
Stewart