|
I guess I wonder if streamlining the consideration of process
proposals is an appropriate goal. This is an area in which it's
far easier to do harm than good, so haste doesn't seem desirable. I also wonder if a dispatch-style group is a good way to consider
such changes. My experience with dispatch-style groups is that
they're good at vetting efforts that have a limited scope of
interest; I don't know how well such a group would work for a
topic of widespread interest. (ok, maybe better than discussing
it all on the IETF list, but that's a low bar.) However, given that a result of a WG is often highly determined by how the problem is defined in its charter (often inappropriately so, IMO), on balance I support the extended public debate of such charters that a WG (maybe not a dispatch-style group) could facilitate. The other thing I wonder is whether we need to consider so many
proposals for process changes that it makes sense to have a WG
just for that purpose. It seems like a more comprehensive
approach would yield better results, than n WGs trying to
come up with piecemeal solutions. I would support an unhurried effort to characterize the spectrum
of problems that might warrant process changes, before actually
trying to form one or more WGs to solve those problems. To me
this looks more like a WG with a limited charter to thoroughly
study the problem(s), than a dispatch-style WG that is created
with the expectation that it's going to draft charters for other
WGs. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but that's my immediate
reaction. Keith
|
