Re: address directorate ping

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>>> Query: would it make sense to do this the same way as the IRTF WGs do,
>>> and  pair the limited-membership, clueful-people-only (?) directorate
>>> with an  open mailing list for discussing the same set of issues?
>>
>> the rirs have those lists up the ying yang.  we should not step over
>> on to their turf.
> 
> us claiming to have an open process for talking about these things requires 
> either that the directorate does nothing external but point to what WGs are 
> relevant, or that the directorate have a default "everything suggested by 
> the directorate will be publicly discussed there" thing.
> 
> if we think that the directorate will always find WGs to point at, it's OK.

hmmm.  so it is not valid for us to point to the rirs' open process
and lists?  seems like a slippery slope to me, i.e. how much of
their processes should we supplant?  i will have to think about
this.  perhaps you and leslie should discuss this with the rir
ceos?

randy