(Untitled)
agenda-interim-2020-gendispatch-01-gendispatch-01-02

interim-2020-gendispatch-01

Gendispatch Interim
Tuesday 2020-09-01 20:00 UTC
Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Pete Resnick

Webex: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mc2aa8693edeab1faf17e92954c44f316

Minutes & Bluesheet:
https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2020-gendispatch-03-gendispatch

- Chair intro (5 minutes)
        * Reminder: we are looking to answer the dispatch question.
                - The discussion on content should be kept on the lines of
                if/what the IETF should work on, as that impacts the "where". -
                We are not trying to solve the problem, we are trying to figure
                out what part of this area the IETF should work on. - Helpful:
                what would be a satisfactory output to the discussion (BCP,
                informational, updates to the RFC Style Guide, changes to the
                idnits tool, Gen-Art review guidelines, something similar to
                W3C manual of style:
                https://w3c.github.io/manual-of-style/#inclusive, ...) - we
                have gone through minutes [1], jabber logs [2], and gendispatch
                mailing list discussion (including the thread starting at [3])
                and tried to summarize the discussion here (see below)

- Terminology proposals:
        * Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-knodel-terminology-04
        * Effective Terminology in IETF drafts
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01
        * Avoiding Exclusionary Language in RFCs
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moore-exclusionary-language-00

        * Summary from IETF108:
                - there is difference of opinion between the problem this draft
                wants to solve and the draft itself (we are trying to dispatch
                the problem as well as the draft) - there were different
                opinions between the problem this draft wants to solve and the
                draft itself (we are trying to dispatch the problem as well as
                the draft) - there was support on the statement that IETF
                should address the problem this draft brings forward - sense of
                the room that draft-knodel-terminology is not a good starting
                point - there needs to be more discussion on content to
                understand what would be a good starting point - there exist
                several options for the discussion on content to take place.
                The sense of the room was that discussion on ietf@ietf mailing
                list was not productive. Options:
                        * Consensus on need for a dedicated mailing list +
                        virtual meetings (/interims) (note: some content
                        discussion was started on gendispatch, in the meantime)
                        * AD sponsored (which would remove the overhead of
                        creating a new WG)
                                - where to have the f2f discussion?
                        * dispatch to a new WG, which would give a clearer
                        place to build consensus and have discussion * dispatch
                        to BOF for discussion * IAB program

        * Brian Carpenter summary of outputs [4] (not complete, does not list
        IAB program, BOF, ...):
                1. Recommend that it be dropped from IETF consideration...
                1.1. ...and referred to the Independent stream
                1.2. ...and referred to the RFC Editor
                1.3. ...and forgotten
                2. Recommend that a WG on this topic be formed...
                2.1. ...and asked to use the draft as a starting point
                2.1. ...and asked to start a completely new draft
                3. Recommend that a sponsoring AD be found...
                3.1. ...and that the draft be used as a starting point
                3.2. ...and that the AD solicits a completely new draft
                4. Recommend that the issue be handled solely by the IESG
                5. Recommend that the issue be handled solely by the RFC Editor

[1] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/minutes/minutes-108-gendispatch-01
[2] https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/gendispatch/2020-07-30.html
[3]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/zsIVefDQLzKQ2WF4KuKyPm1_mFI/
[4]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/ne7FQEBQeHmbz_7y62wpJuAR9NA/