On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think this is a terrible idea. It would create a very unwieldy structure,
effectively an IESG within the IESG. It would only take about a week for the
5 ADs concerned to decide that they need weekly coordination meetings; after
a month they'd discover the need for a well-defined chair for those
meetings.
The APP, TSV and RAI ADs could do that now. Why would the name change mean
that suddenly they'd form a cabal if there hasn't already been demand to form
one? I think you overestimate the willingness of ADs to add more meetings to
our already busy schedules. And for that matter, the utility of such a move.