Re: [Gendispatch] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-gendispatch-01-00: (with COMMENT)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 2 Dec 2021, at 0:10, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     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"?)

That has always been my assumption.

>     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.

This might need some clarification: The distinction here is that 
proposals to change IAB, LLC, IRTF, or RFC Editor processes are not 
appropriate to bring to GENDISPATCH. However, proposals that seem like 
they might be appropriate for IETF work and are brought to GENDISPATCH 
can always be determined by the WG to be either (a) process changes to 
one of the aforementioned groups and therefore the proposer is pointed 
to the appropriate place; or (b) work that theoretically *could* be done 
at an IETF level but might be better handled by one of the other groups. 
For the latter, think of someone proposing a new document to 
update/replace section 7 of 2026 on external standards and 
specifications. After some discussion, GENDISPATCH decides that in order 
to work on the proposal, discussion really needs to be had with the IAB 
regarding their liaison role, and that discussion might end up changing 
the very nature of the update needed to 2026, or might even eliminate 
it. GENDISPATCH could dispatch the entire discussion to the IAB, and at 
a later date the IAB might come back and say, "Nothing for the IETF 
here" or "We're done; now IETF needs to update its documents."

Does the current text need clarification to capture that?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best