Re: [Gendispatch] REMINDER: Terminology-related discussions to [e-mail]

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/31/21 3:15 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> I tried to reply mid-thread, but some people seem to have missed it:
>
> Please move all discussion regarding the terminology documents or TERM 
> charter over to the [e-mail] list. Gendispatch has 
> completed its work on this topic and continued discussion on this list 
> is inappropriate.

Pete, since you're not referring to specific messages here it's hard to 
tell which messages you mean.   But I would argue that a lot of the 
recent posts to this list are not about terminology, and at best 
distantly related to the proposed charter of the proposed TERM WG.

That doesn't mean, of course, that such messages were necessarily within 
scope for gendispatch.  But it's hard to tell what is within scope for 
gendispatch.   Does a topic for potential new work need to be 
well-scoped before discussion of that topic can begin here?

Given that I believe IETF has a Bad Habit of moving discussions as a 
means of suppressing input on "uncomfortable" topics, or perhaps to 
steer such discussion in particular directions that might not reflect 
community consensus, I'm once again concerned that gendispatch seems to 
be designed specifically for the purpose of doing this.

I'm not sure what the remedy is, but if the chairs have specific 
guidance on what makes a topic legitimate for discussion on gendispatch, 
I'd like to know what it is.

thanks,

Keith