The lack of consensus on how to make the next steps in IETF
reform throws it to the Chair and the IESG by default, IMHO.
And the sense of urgency shouldn't be lost. There is a chance to
fix this at relatively low cost, I think, if we act now.
I hate the idea of an open call for proposals. This is not
IPng redux. I'm not saying solutions shouldn't be debated on
appropriate lists, but either the IESG or a designated team
should make proactive proposals for the general directions.
The reason I raised my hand against a design team is because
that suggests a closed method of picking them, as usually
practiced in WGs. An open process (Avri has a suggestion)
to pick a blue ribbon panel is much better.
my headache with an open process to pick a blue ribbon panel is that before
we can pick the panel, we have to have a community consensus for the method
by which we pick it.... this, too, takes time.