We want to be an organization that makes the best decisions possible. With product and technical decision making, there tends to be complexity that is abstracted away from contributors. As a result, those with the most context should be the ones pushing these decisions. In the alternative world, if anyone could push a product + engineering IIP forward and it passed, but it was impossible to implement, that would reduce the legitimacy of the IIP process. Additionally, EWG and PWG need to be able to prioritize their work which can’t happen in this alternative world. Because of this, I think only PWG and EWG members should be the ones able to push IIPs related to our work through the IIP process.
These considerations aren’t baked into the IIP process. That is work that needs to be done. Though it seems like it is something that is sensibly being enforced by the IIP editors.
I actually don’t think most of what I described above is relevant to this IIP. Though I think the process those considerations point to should still be respected. The product and engineering considerations are not that complex and all the work [to my understanding] on the technical side has been done. The main complexity here is the sensitivity of the existing conversation with DFP and the product strategy. I don’t know why @Matthew_Graham you are making this a big priority given the base-level work that is happening. There may be something I am missing so please feel free to correct me. Form my POV, that money will always be there and always claimable if it is something we want to do with DFP.
That said, this is just my opinion, and the final decision-makers here are @Cavalier_Eth as the Product Leader and @afromac as the Pod Lead. I will strive to protect their time when relevant because I know the ginormous amount of threads they are tackling right now.