On 10/11/19 9:08 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
One of my concerns has been that the existence of such a WG could be used to drag things out, as in "we can't consider this until GENDISPATCH meets", then "interesting discussion, let's postpone to the next meeting", then "this really needs a WG for itself", then some delay in getting the WG organized because no one on the IESG is enthused, then... One can easily imagine things being dragged out for close to a year, or longer, until people lose interest or accept the status quo as fated.
Interesting. My concern is somewhat the opposite: that such a WG (especially if not many people join or few people pay attention) can be used to "bury" process changes that the IESG wants to see, and cement them, before the wider community provides significant input. This would be consistent with a longstanding practice in IETF of having WGs that are so siloed that they mask tussles that a more widely-scoped WG would attempt to resolve.
Keith
