On Feb 17, 2014, at 1:44 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > Perhaps this is the problem that should be solved?
I don't know how practical that is. Brian and I have talked about doing one-off meetings when we want to discuss DNS extensions at IETF meetings, since we have the dnsext mailing list for email discussions. But that leads to AD-sponsored documents, which probably isn't the right thing to do on a large scale. >> Possibly rotating working group chairs more frequently would work in such >> cases. > > This seems to imply the working group chairs have a larger role than I > suspect is healthy (either for the WG chairs or the IETF as a whole). Working group chairs are responsible for determining working group consensus. It's really important (IMHO) for working group chairs to take action when mailing list discussions start to tube on non-consensus-affecting tangents. I've seen numerous working groups fail when chairs don't do this. So I really don't know what you mean by "larger role than is healthy." Chairs are not secretaries. They have real work to do, and a real leadership role. They do not decide what the output of the working group should be—they determine consensus based on working group discussions. But this is a difficult task to do well, and I think it's a pretty large role. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
