RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On mandag, desember 09, 2002 22:59:20 -0800 Bill Strahm <bill at strahm.net>
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

My personal opinion is that it would be less effective, because there would
be a larger group that needs to come to consensus on issues - and the group
dynamics of a larger group are more complex/take longer than in a smaller
group.

> 2) What would happen to any "new" IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
> the area is shut down ?

My personal reading is that the rules permit us to reallocate ADs between
areas, and for ADs to resign, but not to remove them. So they would stay
around for a while - the next nomcom would make the adjustments needed.

> In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help
> overall effectiveness, or make it lower
>
> If the consensus of the IESG is that adding more members would make them
> less effective go with the victim/temporary route.
>
> If the consensus of the IESG is that adding two members would make the
> IESG more effective, lets look at making it permanent, or have a place
> to put the extra members when the "temporary" area shuts down.
>
> In other words what makes that IESG more effective