Bill Strahm wrote: > > I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold, > 1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective, > or less > 2) What would happen to any "new" IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if > the area is shut down ?
I think this is a seductively reasonable-sounding-yet-misguided rephrasing of the issue. Sub-IP as an Area ought to be evaluated on its applicability to the IETF. The IESG support (generally quite well and unthanked) the goals of the IETF. If Sub-IP as an Area makes sense for the IETF, then (and only then) does the question arise of whether to add more IESG members. Let's not get the order reversed. cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au
