Skip to main content

General Area Dispatch
charter-ietf-gendispatch-02

Yes

(Lars Eggert)

No Objection

Erik Kline
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
(Martin Duke)
(Martin Vigoureux)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Comment (2021-12-02 for -01-00) Sent
> Full discussions of proposed work should take place where GENDISPATCH directs
> the work, whether that is in a WG or BOF, the IETF discussion list or Last Call
> list in the case of an AD-sponsored document, or in a forum designated by the
> relevant body to which the work was directed.

This reads a bit strange to me. Is this text necessary? One thing is to say "Gendispatch is not chartered to actually do the work" (which is the sentence before this one, and makes sense, and is very clear), but this is very specifically talking about exchanges on the mailing list (what are "full discussions" vs "normal discussions"?). To me it is obvious that once the item has been dispatched, there should be no need to keep discussing it in the gendispatch list, as it either moved to its own discussion area or got rejected or dropped, which is why this sentence is strange.

Francesca
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01-00) Not sent

                            
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2021-12-01 for -01-00) Sent
    Proposed new work may be deferred in cases where GENDISPATCH does not
    have enough information for the chairs to determine consensus. New work
    may be rejected in cases where there is not sufficient interest in
    GENDISPATCH or the proposal has been considered and rejected in the
    past, unless a substantially revised proposal is put forth, including
    compelling new reasons for accepting the work.

Can work be rejected because the WG thinks it is a bad idea?  (Is that
supposed to be part of "not sufficient WG interest"?)

    The existence of GENDISPATCH does not change the IESG's responsibilities
    and discretion as described in RFC 3710. Work related to the IAB, IETF
    LLC, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope.

It's a little bit hard to square "out of scope" with a willingness to
request that those bodies consider taking up work on a given topic.
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Not sent

                            
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Not sent

                            
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2021-12-01 for -01-00) Sent
I question whether AD sponsored documents should be discussed on the IETF discussion mailing list, or whether it would be better for those discussions to continue on the Gendispatch mailing (or an alternative open small mailing list)?  It is certainly possible that some individuals who may be interested in participating in these drafts are subscribed to Gendispatch but choose not to be subscribed to the IETF discussion mailing list.