> 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
