Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-00.txt

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 22:34:45 -0600

Hi, Brian,

On 10/24/2014 01:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> " Each IETF area is managed by one or more Area Directors (ADs)."
>
> I don't object to the flexibility that this change provides.
>
> However, I do remember being very concerned when RAI was created
> that the resulting increase would make the IESG unwieldy and
> less efficient (for example, by increasing the number of DISCUSS
> ballots to be cleared up; by making discussions of the obvious
> take longer; and so on). Which did, in fact, happen.
>
> So I would like to see some sort of aspirational statement in the
> draft that the total size of the IESG should be kept as small as
> possible. The current 15 (+5 liaison/ex officio) is already
> too big IMNSHO.
>
> Regards
>     Brian

I'm planning to submit -01 with this change:

OLD:

    This document allows the IESG additional flexibility in organizing
    the IETF's work.  It does not make any changes to existing Area
    structures, and does not argue that assigning more than two Area
    Directors to an Area is an optimal solution in the long run.

NEW:

    The change described in this document is intended to allow the
    IESG additional flexibility in organizing the IETF's work.  It does
    not make any changes to existing Area structures, and does
    not argue that assigning more than two Area Directors to an
    Area is an optimal solution in the long run. In particular, this
    change is not intended to increase the size of the IESG
    significantly. If several Areas will require more than two Area
    Directors, the IESG should consider investigating alternative
    ways of organizing the IETF's work.

Please let me know if that's headed the wrong direction.

And thanks for the feedback.

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:45:35 +1300

Spencer, that exactly reflects my thoughts, thanks.

   Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 12:11:05 -1000

Spencer: That’s reasonable. And in case anyone wants to know, it certainly has not been my idea to extend the IESG. I think 15 is the practical maximum. (It could be smaller as well from a team perspective, but spreading WG load thinner is also important.) I think the current IESG is largely of the same opinion.

Jari

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:30:27 -1000

Howdy,

> And thanks for the feedback.

The fourth paragraph of Section 2 ends in a comma.  I can't tell if it
should be a period, or if there's a sentence [fragment] missing, or what.

The reference to RFC3777 in Section 2 might better reference
draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, which is part way through IETF Last Call,
though that's also something the RFC Editor might pick off down the line
anyway.

Other than that, ship it!

-MSK

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:47:48 -0600

> Howdy,

Hi, Murray,

I've submitted a couple of updates since -00, but both of your comments 
still apply. Details below.

>
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Spencer Dawkins 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
> wrote:
>

It should be a period. Thanks for catching that. Fixed in -04.

> though that's also something the RFC Editor might pick off down the 
> line anyway.

draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis would be a perfectly fine reference, and 
ideally, my draft wouldn't pass it in IESG evaluation(!), but I'm 
thinking that since there's a race condition, and it doesn't matter 
which draft is approved first, I should probably add a note to the RFC 
Editor about this, and let them do the right thing.

I put this text in -03:

         <section title="NOTE TO THE RFC Editor">

             <t>This document has a normative dependency on RFC 3777, and
             draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, which obsoletes RFC 3777, is
             already in IETF Last Call. The dependency on RFC 3777 is
             perfectly well met by draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, if it's
             approved first, and the reference can safely be updated to
             draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis.
         </t>

         <t>This section can safely be removed by the RFC Editor before 
publication.
         </t>

         </section>

> Other than that, ship it!

Thanks for another careful read!

Spencer

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:40:52 -1000

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> ideally, my draft wouldn't pass it in IESG evaluation(!), but I'm thinking
> that since there's a race condition, and it doesn't matter which draft is
> approved first, I should probably add a note to the RFC Editor about this,
> and let them do the right thing.
>
>
Yeah, now that you mention it, they could even go as a cluster.  Either
way, it'll get sorted.

Thanks,
-MSK