----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter(_at_)adobe(_dot_)com>
To: "Yoav Nir" <ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 7:24 PM
What you are suggesting here is a mini-area with
around 5 working groups. Doesn’t this make it worse?
Of current working groups I'd count 9.5, not 5,
Appsawg .5, Httpbis, Hybi, Json, Urn, Websec, Rtcweb, Webpush, Jose,
Oauth
And perhaps some of OPS work, too.
While a count of WGs is one measure of the load on an AD, another,
suggested by reports from the IESG itself, would be of how many I-Ds are
being handled. Thus a WG like v6ops, which might have 60 I-Ds on the
go, could be an order of magnituude harder to manage that appsawg, which
limited itself to six. This could be quantified by running a script
against tools, to list for each WG how many I-Ds it has adopted and how
many others are currently listed as not yet adopted; and a trend of this
over time might be a measure of how well a WG is coping.
The length of time an I-D is in the system would be another measure of
the load on management so another script could measure how many months
it is from the date when an I-D was adopted to the present date, summing
all the values for a given WG. Again, a trend over time could be a
measure of how well a WG is faring.
Tom Petch