Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Discussion at gendispatch?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 18:12 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2019, at 15:21, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> Pete,
>> 
>> This is fine with me with, as is my wont, a few qualifications
>> and concerns:
>> 
>> (1) It seems to me that the call and the (very few) email
>> notes that followed suggested some changes we might want to
>> make in the document.  I don't think we are even close to
>> consensus on them but, if we are going to reopen the
>> discussion in a different forum, I think it would be very
>> helpful to put discussion placeholders in the document.
> 
> 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.

That is more or less exactly what I hoped you would say.  I
think it makes an gendispatch presentation or discussion
informational, not a request for action from that group.  Right?

   john