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

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:46:47 -0700

> 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.  [eustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I6RcW-0000Ou-Ir; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:43:44 -0400
From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:46:47 -0700
To: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag]
	Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

> 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
[email-masked]
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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:10:24 -0700

On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2007-06-27 20:46, Tony Li wrote:
>> 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.
> I think the other issue is that this layer would be hard to fill in
> our volunteer community. Being a WG Chair has its satisfactions, as  
> does
> being an AD or IAB member; I'm not quite sure what the satisfactions
> in an intermediate position would be. That's why I'd rather push
> work and responsibility into the 120 WGs, where there should be
> compensating satisfaction in work well done.

Some folks might choose to serve nonetheless.

Tony