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

Reply via email to