> At the risk of strawman-ing: If the problem is mainly that GEN issues > tend to eat the IESG list, then a separate mailing list could be > enough. Maybe the idea is mainly to have chairs responsible for > discussion wrangling? If so, then a more conventional “GenArea” working > group might do the trick. I don't think it's that they "eat the IESG list" so much as that they "eat the IETF list". And not in the sense that they monopolize the list, but that that particular list isn't sufficiently focused to give process issues proper consideration and determine what the right way to handle them is. From my PoV, the advantage of a DISPATCH-like group, rather than an unfocused area group, is that the former is assigned the task of considering what's being discussed/proposed and figuring out how best to address it... rather than to just keep discussing it to no conclusion. > Another difference is that while DISPATCH is mainly interesting to > people in the ART Area, we can expect GENDISPATCH to draw from all > areas. We try not to let DISPATCH conflict with other ART meetings. How > do you deconflict GENDISPATCH without it turning into another plenary > or a standing BoF? This is always an issue with Gen Area BoFs and WGs, and this will be no different. I think the bottom line is that there'll be a set of people who will want to participate regularly, and we'll try to accommodate that... there'll be people who want to parachute in for certain topics, and we'll do what we can to accommodate that, realizing that it's harder... and there'll be a lot of people who won't want to have anything to do with it until a proposal is at a stage where they strongly support it or object to it, and there's little we can do to accommodate that. It is what it is, but it's no different than if we just charter Gen Area WGs without a DISPATCH-like start. No? Barry
