Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

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