[Gendispatch] BALLOT WG BoF?

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi folks,

Based on the discussion in San Francisco, I've created a straw-man charter for a WG to enshrine IESG balloting procedures (including DISCUSS criteria) into BCP. See (current content pasted below):
  https://gist.github.com/mnot/c94388fbbaee18e4bf9c2505a64495a5

Any feedback / suggestions appreciated.

Cheers,


~~~ markdown
## Required Details

* Status: WG Forming
* Responsible AD: Lars Eggert
* BOF proponents: Mark Nottingham
* Number of people expected to attend: 50
* Length of session (1 or 2 hours): 2 hours
* Conflicts (whole Areas and/or WGs): GENDISPATCH, RSWG
* Chair Conflicts: TBD
* Technology Overlap: TBD
* Key Participant Conflict: TBD

## Information for IAB/IESG

See [discussion of DISCUSS criteria at GENDISPATCH 117](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/materials/minutes-117-gendispatch-202307252200-00)


## Agenda

* Agenda Bash / Administrativia (5 minutes)
* Problem statement (20 minutes)
* Clarifying questions (20 minutes)
* Charter discussion (50 minutes)
* BOF questions (15 minutes)
* Solution space discussion (time permitting)


## Proposed Charter

Over time, the IESG has developed an extensive balloting system to determine whether documents should be published on the IETF stream, including:

* The [IESG Ballot Procedures](https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/)
* The [DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/)

Both of these documents are published as IESG Statements; they are not part of the Internet Standards Process, and do not represent IETF consensus. However, they have significant impact on how the community operates, as an inevitable step in the process for representing IETF consensus on the IETF stream. As such, they too should be under community control.

The BALLOT Working Group will create Best Current Practice RFCs to replace these documents, with the benefit of community consensus on their contents. It will use the current documents as they exist today, and may publish them in that form, so long as consensus emerges to do so. 
~~~



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/