SM,
I agree with Melinda, both generally and with regard to the
Singapore example.
That said, let me make an alternate suggestion.
Suppose that, instead of expecting the facilitator(s) to monitor
the IETF list, looking for problems, we try the following. The
facilitators are viewed as problem-solvers (as now), but are not
expected to do problem-identification. Instead, unless they
spontaneously notice a problem, they wait for someone to notice
an actual or potential problem and bring it to their attention.
Then, if they think it appropriate, they review whatever needs
to be reviewed, generate summaries if appropriate, and explain
to the authors of offensive, off-topic, or wrong topic posts
where those posts should go and what the IETF mechanisms are for
dealing with persistent offensiveness.
It seems to me that would be far less work when things were
going reasonably well, would have higher odds of being effective
when they weren't, and would provide a good escalation path when
needed.
john
--On Wednesday, November 09, 2016 10:24 -0900 Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 11/9/16 10:16 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Could you please send some feedback about whether it is
useful to have Facilitators for ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?
The experiment appears to have had minimal impact. It's
perhaps most helpful to consider the role of the facilitators
during the lengthy and occasionally acrimonious Singapore
discussion, where facilitation was unhelpful.