|
On 10/8/19 3:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: 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. The flip side of this argument is that the IETF list might represent a broader spectrum of concerns, than a group that's specifically devoted to looking at process changes. If the gendispatch WG doesn't enjoy a broad spectrum of representation from the IETF community as a whole, it could easily go off the rails. And it also seems likely that such a group would be biased towards those who think that process changes are a Good Thing, and perhaps against those who think current processes are mostly ok. I certainly don't think that process changes should be hashed out in detail on the IETF list, but it might still be better for initial discussion of new ideas than a separate WG. I'm also one of those asking "what are the problems to be
solved?" Because the proposed charter for this WG seemed to
indicate some sense of urgency, so presumably there are some
problems that the group's proponents have in mind. Keith
|
