RE: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles

John,

my own belief in this matter......

- The IESG is not capable, IN ISOLATION, of having the discussion that 
leads to the right changes being attempted (and, after being attempted, 
validated and declared a success, being done consistently by ALL ADs).
- The community, whether on the IETF list, the IETF-announce list, the 
mythical "sum-of-all-WGs" list, the plenary or somewhere else, is capable 
of delivering several sorts of feedback, but not capable of having the 
discussion. Note the disparity between the "straw polls" in Minneapolis and 
the average tone of the 29 speakers at the mike.
- The community, perhaps with good justification, distrusts the value of 
having discussion take place on relatively obscure mailing lists that do 
not have a publicly-reviewed charter or an identified chair.
- Once you have a charter and a chair, the difference between the mechanism 
that we need and a working group is small enough to be academic - so 
there's no reason to invent a new mechanism.

Note that I'm all for both new mechanisms when needed and unilateral AD 
action when that's the right thing - but I don't see that as a reason NOT 
to form a WG here.

I think a WG is the Right Thing. The charter is a matter for another 
discussion.

                 Harald

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr

RE: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWRWG proposal