Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/8/19 3:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> At the risk of strawman-ing: If the problem is mainly that GEN issues
>> tend to eat the IESG list, then a separate mailing list could be
>> enough. Maybe the idea is mainly to have chairs responsible for
>> discussion wrangling? If so, then a more conventional “GenArea” working
>> group might do the trick.
> I don't think it's that they "eat the IESG list" so much as that they
> "eat the IETF list".  And not in the sense that they monopolize the
> list, but that that particular list isn't sufficiently focused to give
> process issues proper consideration and determine what the right way
> to handle them is.

The flip side of this argument is that the IETF list might represent a 
broader spectrum of concerns, than a group that's specifically devoted 
to looking at process changes.   If the gendispatch WG doesn't enjoy a 
broad spectrum of representation from the IETF community as a whole, it 
could easily go off the rails.   And it also seems likely that such a 
group would be biased towards those who think that process changes are a 
Good Thing, and perhaps against those who think current processes are 
mostly ok.

I certainly don't think that process changes should be hashed out in 
detail on the IETF list, but it might still be better for initial 
discussion of new ideas than a separate WG.

I'm also one of those asking "what are the problems to be solved?"   
Because the proposed charter for this WG seemed to indicate some sense 
of urgency, so presumably there are some problems that the group's 
proponents have in mind.

Keith