On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Robert Elz wrote:
A big attraction of the current setup is that it allows the poisson WG
to undertake work that it decides it ought to do, and once finished that
is WG product, which is much harder to kill.
Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair. Neither
POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do when it
wants to do it. All topics have always needed IESG approval. It's just
that with POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval was just
handled by the Chairs on behalf of the working group.
The only substantial difference I see in this proposal compared to how
things work is the suggestion to "create" a working group for each
issue. Operationally it is the way it has always been (at least for me)
so all this proposal does is make that step obvious to the community.
I don't consider having one open, general, mailing list an issue versus
having two (poised and ietf). When there's a working group task it will
have its own list. Otherwise, why does it matter whether discussion of
topics come and go on the ietf list or the poised list?
Jim
--
James M. Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself