On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Keith Moore wrote:
> The issue is not whether POISSON discusses any particular topic but what
> is the result (actions after consensus) of that discussion, regardless
> of where it took place.
The issues are far broader than that. We are talking about dismantling
poisson and about what might replace it in its absence.
POISSON is a working group and the proposal is to shut it down, just as
POISED and POISED95 existed and were shutdown after a time. It will be
replaced with another (probably more than one) working group as needed.
"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything
as if it were a nail".
A poisson++ working group would probably be an adequate mechanism for
revising 2026 or working out details of a new process. But I don't think
a working group is a good mechanism for airing gripes or getting quick
resolution to process problems. The discusssion on the poisson list
indicated that we have such problems, but that doesn't mean that either
poisson or the ietf list is a good way to address them.
This proposal neither fixes nor worsens this issue.
I disagree. I think poisson had more teeth, and was a better means of
reaching people who are sensitive to such concerns, than the IETF list.
What I'm
saying is that we have problems which cannot be satisfactorily addressed
merely by telling people "bring this discussion to the IETF list".
How is this different than suggesting they are satisfactorily addressed
by bringing them to the poised list? If it isn't then I don't see how
it is relevant to shutting down POISSON.
The problem isn't simply with shutting down poisson; it's with shutting
it down without taking concrete action to identify and solve the problems
that were (perhaps poorly) being addressed by poisson.
Keith