Hi Ben, > On Oct 11, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Oct 11, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Ben, >> >>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Here’s an attempt to distill my concern a little better: >>> >>> The “dispatch process” can reasonably be thought of as a triage process. Triage makes sense when you don’t have the time and resources to address every problem and have to pick and choose where you can have the most impact. If you do have time and resources to address everything, then triage is just a process bump. >>> >>> Do we believe that GEN area proposals will routinely exceed our capacity to discuss them? If so, do we think that will continue to be true for the foreseeable future? (I assume this is intended to be a long-lived wg). >> >> I guess I see the question differently. If there are people in the community who are willing to manage discussions about process proposals while they’re in formation (i.e., people willing to chair this WG), that seems like a better arrangement than the current one both from the perspective of being more community-led and from the perspective of the other time commitments that the IESG has. If the WG isn’t busy or meeting all the time, that’s fine — it will still be nice to have it there for times when process proposals do come up and inspire discussion. > > I think I’ve been unclear in my concern. I have no objection to having a working group for discussion of proposals to improve processes. I think that’s a good idea. My question is about whether such working group should be limited to the dispatch process. > > Certainly there may be case where there it is appropriate dispatch work to some other venue, spin up a new wg for a proposal, etc. But I wonder why we need to decide in advance that work on a proposal will cannot be completed by this group. Especially when it seems likely that the people working on a proposal will often be the same whether the work happens in gendispatch or somewhere else. Ah, got it. This is a good question. Perhaps we can try it in dispatch-style for awhile and see if we’re often arriving at an outcome where it seems like just processing a document in the WG would be the most logical thing to do. If so, a re-charter to allow that would be possible. I was a little hesitant to jump straight to having a General Area Working Group; the dispatch-style group seemed like it could be a useful intermediate step. Alissa > > Thanks! > > Ben. >> >
