Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt

A couple of comments:

2.1.  Change Process Proposal
   The teams should function with an open discussion list, in the same
   way that the PESCI team has done.  The output of each team should be
   tested against the IETF consensus in the normal fashion; we believe
   that if there is clear IETF consensus that the proposal makes sense,
   the IESG (and the ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that consensus
   and approve of it.

==> the consensus judged by _whom_?  Did you mean rough consensus, 
btw?

3.  Immediate Tasks for the Change Process
   This review should include:
.... (9 bullets of stuff...)

==> this seems a very extensive task, with several separable pieces. 
The list seems to be written in such a way that I got the impression 
the "first team" should do all of the above.  This doesn't seem 
productive at all.

Is this (again) the case of, "by the way, could you please rewrite 
RFC2026 and all our process docs while you're at it.. THANKS!" ?

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings