speaking as an individual participant. W.r.t. > Is PESCI characterizing the current process or inventing a new > one? Is it about principles for the IETF or principles for > process change? My understanding is that the PESCI effort is to come up with a proposal for the IETF on "how to deal/handle process changes". In other words, today all of this is done via BCPs that go through IESG for approval. A problem is that the IESG becomes the bottleneck, but also that IESG may be reluctant to change when the change impacts the IESG functions/functioning itself. Another problem I see is that the IESG (who is supposed to steer and process the IETF technical (standardization) work) often gets interrupted to deal with process cgange proposals. So my hope would be that PESCI can propose a new "process for process and/or organizational change(s)" that will take the IESG out of the loop, but would have mechanisms for gauging IETF consensus on any future changes similar to what we have today. Once the PESCI effort comes up with such a proposal, we (IETF) can evaluate it and probably approve it as a BCP, just following our current process (i.e. a sponsoring AD and go through IESG etc). Once that new BCP gets approved, we can leave the IESG out of the critical path and new proposals for process or organization changes can then be handled via that new mechanism. So in that sense, I agree with you John that a lot of the discussion on the PESCI mailing list is so to speak "not-in-scope" for the task that the PESCI team was started (at least as I understood it). Bert _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf