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

John Leslie <> Fri, 19 December 2014 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E651A89B4 for <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:20:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3dgHd5tCHFV5 for <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BB21A89AE for <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 9B65AC94BD; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:20:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:20:48 -0500
From: John Leslie <>
To: Stewart Bryant <>
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
Message-ID: <20141219152048.GC376@verdi>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
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 15:20:53 -0000

Stewart Bryant <> wrote:
> 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.

   I suspect what you mean is that individual WGs could have their
Responsible AD temporarily assigned from another Area (or perhaps
their backup AD temporarily assigned).

   That probably would have helped when Martin was stuck as sole AD
in the Trasnport area.

   And it would be good to allow the IESG leeway to do that. But I'm
not sure it belongs in this document...

John Leslie <>