On 28-Nov-24 04:37, Michael Richardson wrote:
Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One proviso is that the charter for GENAREA needs to be very clear
> about what small things it can take on, and what things really need
> wider community consensus first. And I don’t really mean on the size
> of the work, but the potential impact of the work on the community or
> the standards process.
It seems you are just re-creating GENDISPATCH with a new name.
If you want to take on "small" things, then just say something like:
"GENDISPATCH can also do small efforts, as determined by the IESG"
we don't need to anticipate everything, or litigate everything twice in
charter than then again.
====
I prefer to keep GENDISPATCH with the other dispatch work.
I think it's MORE IMPORTANT than the other dispatch work that it be
conflict-free.
Yes. One of the frustrations about working on IETF process issues is
that most of the people affected by them don't help fix them. We need
many more participants to take an interest in process work, and a specific
advantage of having GENDISPATCH as part of a plenary dispatch session is
that more people will be in the room. It is *not* a waste of their time.
Brian
