Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

[Tony Li <tli at cisco.com>]

> I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
> possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and  
> having
> sub-ADs report to them.


It's well known that when dealing with a scalability issue, the way  
to address the issue is to install hierarchy. .neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I6RcW-0000Ou-Ir; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:43:44 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3cXm-0003PE-7R
	for ietf at ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:47:10 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3cXl-00040N-Vb
	for ietf at ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:47:10 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186])
	by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2007 11:47:01 -0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAL9NgkarR7O6h2dsb2JhbACPJgEBCQ4s
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,467,1175497200"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="164506694:sNHT95070834"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254])
	by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l5RIl0tY021347; 
	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:47:00 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com
	[128.107.191.100])
	by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l5RIkon0025049;
	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:47:00 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by
	xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:46:55 -0700
Received: from [171.70.251.47] ([171.70.251.47]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:46:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <46827CBD.8040206 at isi.edu>
References: <tsltzteyvr5.fsf at mit.edu>	<466DFCF8.8070305 at qualcomm.com>	<200706121410.l5CEArEb012556 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>	<466EF143.30401 at qualcomm.com>	<p06240608c294b394deca at [76.102.225.135]>	<467E9980.6000603 at isi.edu>
	<46821F2E.6030807 at gmail.com> <468263AF.5030300 at isi.edu>
	<4682672F.9060206 at cs.utk.edu> <46826BA4.9090002 at isi.edu>
	<468278E5.8050907 at gmail.com> <46827CBD.8040206 at isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
X-Gpgmail-State: !signed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <805E16D8-4A0B-483F-B06E-DCCA4D03D1B6 at cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Tony Li <tli at cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:46:47 -0700
To: Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2007 18:46:55.0355 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[88B224B0:01C7B8EB]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=572; t=1182970020;
	x=1183834020; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=tli at cisco.com;
	z=From:=20Tony=20Li=20<tli at cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20Should=20I*=20opinions=20be=20afforded=20a=20special=
	20status?=20(Re=3A=20[saag]=20Declining=20the=20ifare=20bof=20for=20Chicag
	o) |Sender:=20;
	bh=o25mcSSB0cQ6W/qUiwM+rcJQmfXRzHwHMMSVPBtWohs=;
	b=PgHgsoJlCuVktMyUW3EkKicobLDqPkFgkHBVu7bCjJMmryI5QKLhjbXa5WW0XtMHEo7tgyM0
	agq+qEkXVw2RMIjHyzGb6IqruKU0BMKaA/abypr07BqG/4pc+lQrJAsA;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=tli at cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig
	from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:42:51 -0400
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag]
	Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org


> I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
> possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and  
> having
> sub-ADs report to them.


It's well known that when dealing with a scalability issue, the way  
to address the issue is to install hierarchy.  [Have you ever heard  
me say this before?  ;-)]  Adding another layer of management  is  
therefore the obvious approach and a fine alternative to having co- 
ADs or more areas.

The downside to this is increased inefficiency and disconnect from  
reality.

Tony

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Have you ever heard  
me say this before?  ;-)]  Adding another layer of management  is  
therefore the obvious approach and a fine alternative to having co- 
ADs or more areas.

The downside to this is increased inefficiency and disconnect from  
reality.

Tony

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf