Harald,
Without touching on the question of working group rot, I'll note that the
difficulty with your proposal is that process issues tend to arise
individually and periodically, and often need a timely resolution.
Working group chartering, and even mailing list setup, has quite a bit of
overhead. It is unlikely that the effort associated with them will be
viable for the periodic (multiple times per year) requirements of process
discussion.
Note, for example, some recent issues about a particular working group's
process that warranted -- and received -- immediate discussion and
clarification. My own sense of the Poisson discussion was that it was
reasonable in tone and had a constructive resolution.
- - - - -
Hence, let me suggest a revision to your proposal, intended to respond to
the concern but lighten the administrative burden:
Retain the list and the group. Permit open discussion, in order to provide
a separate venue for raising issues.
The group chair will assess rough consensus about the need to pursue a
topic and will draft a task description to serve as a mini-charter
statement of work. It will be sent to ietf-announce, to permit non-poisson
mailing list members to know of the new activity.
The chair will then manage the task process in the usual way.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
