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

Michael StJohns <> Fri, 19 December 2014 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5289F1A8AAF for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:02:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.512
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.512 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, MISSING_MID=0.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dW2B1q-YcWsa for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D1D1A8032 for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id VC201p0022VvR6D01C2wqr; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:02:56 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id VC2l1p00D0D3YW201C2nE1; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:02:54 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:02:49 -0500
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>, "" <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
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
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-em11hqDhHK1joyo7fEVO=uktmfnd5fZpPQ2dT-yiN7Wg@mail.g>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_371533853==.ALT"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1418947376; bh=5nZYIJJfPGCyLj1jPIE8/Xz31TpAaF9K5rviMKyKUOA=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=UTzjUX46eDK4t7w3jc2+Ur+NPxqmIkvDkx6D292Aj8KrRFlKqzr5KW4bQqW9cx4Wn eLMtSSuoeUsgvhLMkSGu5tIHEdF2PxBQ92CVhS45837olFbiC+/uxIHHD94xzBalC7 smGmvWq651Z6rbzLYiZUfWZ1J1tRGa9abPn5pCGBM0ed56RlkG5T+0sLVZd5xIP+e+ O9Z8GfC1Ejqyqhso6hUbepX0ezIj/MwR8OQHlWhVnwWvM72qGQ6c5BJyJt787ew/7y pP7BLcLs7A7lKOQ3ILNcygdOwu43+kBhCTx9i6OWL/lAb0g+kn7hPSEy4rpsV7HzfU DOxhqMayAuzfw==
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 00:02:59 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 05:47 PM 12/18/2014, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

>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, see <> 
>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. 
>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.