> 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.
while this is true, neither Poisson or its predecessors has ever been quite like any other working group. in my experience IESG has felt considerable pressure to follow the direction of Poisson, and some reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic. furthermore there's an inhernet problem with IESG demanding that it have tight reign on a WG that specifies the process that IESG must follow. I freely acknowledge that there are good reasons to close down any working group that has existed for as long as poisson. and yet I think doing so creates a vacuum which cannot be filled entirely by the IETF list and narrowly focused WGs. It appears that we need better mechanisms for quickly dealing with each of two conditions: 1. process problems which are not addressed in our current documents 2. alleged violations of process on the part of those who are running things. the first problem is to handle process issues that need quick resolution but which cannot wait until a newly formed WG has decided what to do. the second problem is to address deficiencies in our appeals procedure, which takes far too long to resolve issues, places a huge burden on an already overworked IESG, and often places IESG in the awkward position of having to pass judgement on the past activities of one of its members. If we had better mechanisms for these in place I think it would fill some of the needs that were partially met in the past by the poised list, and could easily serve those needs better than the poised list was able to do. both of these mechanisms need to have clear and publically visible ways of raising the issue, and inviting public comment where appropriate. Keith
