Re: Last Call: <draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.txt> (Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area) to Best Current Practice

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 18, 2014 6:02 PM, "Michael StJohns" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> At 05:47 PM 12/18/2014, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
>
>> NEW
>>
>> While it's true that recent IESGs have had two Area Directors in each
Area except for the General Area, the number of Area Directors in each Area
has varied since https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1396.txt (for reference, see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html).Â
>>
>> This variation was due to a number of factors, including workload and
personal preferences, and happened as a natural part of the IESG organizing
itself to do the work the IESG is chartered to do.Â
>>
>> At one point, the IESG placed three Area Directors in a single Area
(Scott Bradner, Deirdre Kostick, and Michael O'Dell, in the Operational &
Management Requirements Area, between IETF 36 and IETF 37 in 1996).
>
>
> I don't think I have any real problems with the original language.
>
> The particular case that Scott cites though was due to the combining of
two different areas - Operations (which had 2 ADs) and Network Management
(which had 1).  That happened midway through the cycle and not (AIRC) as
part of the Nomcom placing three people as ADs for Ops and Management.
>
> So it was transitional, and reflected in the next Nomcom results which
brought the O&M AD count down to two.   Operationally, I don't think it
affected which groups the ADs had had before the merge.
>
> Mike

Hi, Mike,

Right - that's what I think I'm pointing to - that there's not a natural
law that says all areas are exactly two ADs wide, and things can move
around, and IESGs can work out specifics with Nomcoms.

Thanks for the extra background - it's helpful.

Spencer