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 <> Fri, 19 December 2014 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447831AC3A7 for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGJ-04JnupH4 for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 199871AC439 for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w7so1870232lbi.30 for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LJ0GRAN62miU7a7zi8u1qC8v9hnkqQv1wU8Mm7Yt9nc=; b=SOq5LZv8876N9nCOEp7ut1uSQBA3wiih0G8RlclCjUyu/YlajC7MkNMyREfi2fSdZy 2ho74/AiIEQ2mP1NwLf1En5N6SG1fgGDdad7vsWdniR2FjjF+qEtxc0esT8BxIRCLNrA FcR2cxPAKUFzZRoxiftDWmtCzwGEjE2Xga9F8f8RTz8RmcPZtWbvj3DqYJOrB+Tv3SsN j8crFA9mm2aq9FOE+U2VcaWOJsfIa99AIqVFZ76M/sK4V2ptBHfvOW+9Qb1CAZsSYZUA 1OABPoAiH6Gk/UUzrXrbhUY7WP4gPVjyX2mAp7f8cMhyzeFhQgYs67oMV9agvg4bPhIA s63g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id o6mr5031750lah.64.1418947816638; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:10:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 18:10:16 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: 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
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b45490cd7f050a868841
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:10:29 -0000

On Dec 18, 2014 6:02 PM, "Michael StJohns" <> 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 (for reference, seeÂ
>> 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.