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

Stewart Bryant <> Fri, 19 December 2014 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CF81A886D for <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:50:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1x8NjdBCO4Kq for <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 420201A882F for <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:50:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=688; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418986220; x=1420195820; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ga/NZrM5UsaXQAKkfYpHeNg7d1nl5UKSJXAlD2EErjY=; b=ibVTmgy38OxIPv8RH9QrpSI4xol/2cbGZVQEee7RSmVDmSa+VwtSR3Lm wZNcWCTyPc7oiwfluDwC30v5n9dOzPLSuTHIsFmYT1/RJvDyoWL6G6EDJ VDUUgr74s+EPRWgH035ZNlGGWJAWE0qPVqUS1OAWjHCKBKFdtH/DZyXOf A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,606,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="275908915"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2014 10:50:17 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBJAoA2s013663; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:50:16 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:50:10 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 10:50:22 -0000

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.

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.

- Stewart