No subject

tracking things and too much needed to be followed/organized/etc by the
same folks.

I'd suggest, rather than the generic Technical Committee, something more
specific -- I much prefer any committee to have a defined
output/responsibility, rather than just meeting for the sake of meeting.

Accepting Chris's thought the idea that the "Committee of the Whole" (the
list & IRC participants) is the ultimate decision making mechanism, I'd
say try to get some folks be step forward handle some specific functions
as support to the process.
Namely as...

 - an RFC Wrangling Committee, which would meet minimum once a month (just
to check in) and/or within some set time period of new RFCs coming it (as
in triggered by).  The volunteers for this would maintain the RFC list,
and assign states to things ("needs more info","for discussion","in
progress","in code","fully incorporated" for example).  The community can
then use that state list to drive the overall agenda.  This would make
sure nothing gets ignored or forgotten.  This should have a Senior and
Junior Wrangler identified, who would help keep things focused - but
would preserve broader community say in things.

 - a release committee (effectively exists now anyway) - which would be
the developers and whomever else they feel is needed to define the Next
Koha Release, juggled as it is now by current Release Manager.  This gang
should be left mostly alone by the "Whole" to worry about
day-to-day/immediate questions.

It might be worth trying to get a new volunteer/victim to be the next
release manager very much in advance of the release date... that way, the
general/scheduling discussion can get settled for the next release much
sooner - without stressing out the "sitting" release manager.  Call it the
"prospective release manager" job, maybe?  That way you get someone who'll
be thinking about the long term but who'll have to live with that long
term in the deliverable sense.

As a further thought... If the volunteers for Senior and Junior Wrangler
are in widely separate places, they could meet with subsets of the RFC
group - which would be open meetings of course- on IRC, if desired, with
less timezone headache.

Does any of that help?
Nick