Joe, all,
2- the LISP team will keep asking the question until they get the answer they like I appreciate that (2) is currently in vogue in the IETF as a whole, but it's a suboptimal way to handle this sort of thing.
Let me clarify the process here. I have no intention of changing my recommendation just because someone doesn't like the answer.
However, as with any other BOF, an initial reaction from the community may be negative. On BOFs that eventually become chartered WGs in such a situation, the proponents, the AD, and the community work together to redefine scope, goals, and technical content. Once the community is satisfied that the new proposal actually is a good one, we can create a WG.
Note that this can involve a significant effort and the participants must be willing to take feedback into account. For instance, the first SAVA BOF failed, but after significant scaling down of the proposals, an interim meeting that the ADs hosted, and a change of technical direction, the second BOF eventually lead to the creation of the SAVI WG. Similarly, the community felt in Dublin that ALTO was not ready, but a big effort from everyone on the mailing list allowed the redefinition of the charter text so that it actually got approved right before Minneapolis, even without a second BOF. In both cases it was important that the community eventually felt comfortable with the end result.
I hope that we can do something like this for EXPLISP. I hope this clarifies, Jari