Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion at gendispatch?

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete, John,
At 04:12 PM 06-11-2019, Pete Resnick wrote:
>It would be fine to put placeholders in the document, but I'm 
>inclined not to "reopen the discussion in a different forum". That 
>is, the purpose of gendispatch is to dispatch: Do a short review of 
>the issues that are open, get a sense on the amount of work required 
>to move it forward (if at all), and recommend whether to form a WG, 
>have it AD sponsored, etc. In particular, gendispatch has no charter 
>to "get the work done", so the only thing getting such a list into 
>the document will do is give a better idea as to how to handle the 
>document. (Of course, when we discuss such things, people are bound 
>to ask questions and discuss some of the issues in the document, but 
>the plan is to keep that discussion very limited.)
>
>Whether the below should go into the document are entirely for a 
>discussion on this list.

I find the placeholder approach (please see John's emails) more 
efficient.  Pete made a good point about not reopening the discussion 
in another forum.  In my opinion, it is better to defer to the 
subscribers of this mailing on whether the next version of the draft 
should include placeholders or not.  I'll suggest waiting another day 
to see whether there are any comments.

As for "getting work done", I have some experience of the IETF's 
version of running in circles.  I found the experience quite entertaining.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy