[dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: big groups vs small, focused groups

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> One clarifying question:  If the primary point of a split in half is to
> increase the speed of some of the drafts, how would the split
> functionally accomplish this if the agenda time between the two groups
> remained the same?

Like I said in my previous email, having a more strict "issue
discussion" process and less "presenting new ideas" time should free
up time I think.

I also believe multiple lists will reduce the distractions of the "one big
list with all DNS topics" that kinda always seem to burn / drown out other
threads.

> Or do you envision dnsop maintaining the current
> two-session reservations and adding a third for your dev group?

Either could be possible depending on the workload after documents would
get (re)assigned to either group.

> Or do
> you think the split itself will increase the time for some drafts
> because the weighting will not be 50/50 and, if so, then one group will
> end up being slower to get things done right while the other (the
> operational side) becomes faster?

I would expect dnsop to become faster. Whether or when they could go
back to one session instead of two, I couldn't predict at this point.

> TL;DR: I understand the rational for the split but not how it itself
> would achieve the goals.

I think its more the contained focus on the mailinglists that would
create this. Recent example is the subtag discussion which would be
fine for the "devel" group, but wouldn't take time and focus on out
of dnsop. But I also think it does need to go hand in hand with
chairs steering concrete draft open issues per email thread, and keep
slow feeding this into dnsop.

Paul