Brian, Alissa, > I think that we have never really had a problem handling minor process fixes. That's why we have so many process-related RFCs, in fact. For those, GENDISPATCH will clearly help us do the triage a bit more systematically, and that is a Good Thing. For what it is worth, I’m in favour of setting up this new group. I agree with Brian’s assessment above; when it comes to non-technical work, we’ve certainly been able to do many small changes. Actually, unlike Brian I think we’ve also been able to do some bigger things as well (IASA 2.0 comes to mind as a recent example) but maybe some of those are more under the topic of administration rather than process work. Anyway, I think what this new working group will bring is a bit more structure and additional people and more eyes on topics that have traditionally too reliant on GEN AD sponsorship and IESG discussions. That’s great, and an improvement (even if we previously were able to produce process RFCs as well). This new working group does not remove all problems from this space, of course, and one of the continuing challenges is to get the people who do normal IETF work to know and care about process issues. Bringing things up on plenaries etc will be useful, as well as on ietf@ietf (but clearly, the set of people on that != the set of people doing IETF work). Also, +1 to what Mirja wrote. Jari
