Query: adding additional AD

[John C Klensin]

Uh... a firm, definitive, "Maybe".

I think "new AD" (or "new Area") are decisions the process 
explicitly reserves to the IESG.  Attempted micromanaging of 
that process (or decision) from a WG (or even a plenary) is 
almost certain to cause more harm than the value of either a 
"yes" or "no" decision is worth.   So I hope the IESG will weigh 
the considerations --based, presumably, on the input they have 
already and their understanding of their own needs and 
constraints-- and make a decision.   I hope they will do so 
swiftly, because it is important to get on with the work.   And 
I hope they will choose to explain their reasoning, since there 
are clearly tradeoffs involved.

For the record, my original suggestion was contingent: not 
"let's do this" but "if we need to do something, a new AD (with 
or without a new Area) is preferable to inventing procedures". 
And, to the extent to which I think a new AD would be useful 
(I'm not convinced one way or the other), my focus is more on 
IESG work load levels, possible appeals, and possibly an 
increase in openness resulting from less load and stress than on 
any issues of distrust or "who is reporting to whom" process. 
I hope the IESG will consider those issues for whatever value 
they might have in the balance.

      john



--On Friday, 30 May, 2003 09:32 -0400 Melinda Shore 
<mshore at cisco.com> wrote:

> Let's try to come to some closure on this.  Question: Should
> we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  If
> your answer is conditional ("yes, but only if a new area is
> created; yes, but only if the person is left-handed") please
> say so.  We don't need answers explained right now; we're
> just trying to see if we've got consensus.  Also, we're not
> assuming any particular structure for a new AD - if there's
> agreement that we need one we'll come back and try to get
> that answered afterwards.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melinda
>