>> Is an interim-only WG that never meets at the regular meetings acceptable to this IESG? I highly doubt it would be acceptable to the larger IETF community, but without community involvement in this statement or 2418bis, we'll never know. >It always helps to discuss questions like this not only from general principles, but also with respect to running code. >The cellar WG runs exactly like this, and it is generally considered a rather successful WG. The point I was trying to make, is that "we don't know" what the IETF community thinks about the general concept of never meeting at one of the regular meetings. That's not an argument against CELLAR; I was trying to make an argument for community involvement in deciding what the principles and code, if you will, should be.
