Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

I guess I wonder if streamlining the consideration of process proposals 
is an appropriate goal.    This is an area in which it's far easier to 
do harm than good, so haste doesn't seem desirable.

I also wonder if a dispatch-style group is a good way to consider such 
changes.   My experience with dispatch-style groups is that they're good 
at vetting efforts that have a limited scope of interest; I don't know 
how well such a group would work for a topic of widespread interest.   
(ok, maybe better than discussing it all on the IETF list, but that's a 
low bar.)

However, given that a result of a WG is often highly determined by how 
the problem is defined in its charter (often inappropriately so, IMO), 
on balance I support the extended public debate of such charters that a 
WG (maybe not a dispatch-style group) could facilitate.

The other thing I wonder is whether we need to consider so many 
proposals for process changes that it makes sense to have a WG just for 
that purpose.  It seems like a more comprehensive approach would yield 
better results, than /n/ WGs trying to come up with piecemeal solutions.

I would support an unhurried effort to characterize the spectrum of 
problems that might warrant process changes, before actually trying to 
form one or more WGs to solve those problems.   To me this looks more 
like a WG with a limited charter to thoroughly study the problem(s), 
than a dispatch-style WG that is created with the expectation that it's 
going to draft charters for other WGs.   Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, 
but that's my immediate reaction.

Keith