John, On 12/11/15 19:16, John C Klensin wrote: > No IESG that was seated when the suggestions came up has > been willing to let the community consider them. Can you point at something to back that up? I'm not asking to try to catch you out btw, but first I've no idea how the IESG could prevent the community considering stuff, and second, whilst I've been on the IESG I really don't think anyone who served would've taken that stance. (An IESG might be able to stall stuff, but not prevent consideration.) As to the broader topic, the IESG has spent some time on considering the whole AD workload thing and we did not manage to reach consensus on anything that looked like it'd really work out as a general solution. (Efforts continue but more on a per-area basis at the moment.) One conclusion I've reached as a result is that that also reflects the lack of consensus in the broader community as to what they want the IESG to do or not do. Absent such a consensus, I doubt that we'll find this discussion that productive, though I'd love to be wrong there. I also suspect that absent such a consensus the IESG will inexorably end up more of a non-technical management and bureaucratic body that slowly but surely takes on more work and makes itself bigger. If that's true, then the lack of community consensus to figure this out is also a sort of decision, though not one many of us would like (I hope). Thanks, S.