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

Keith Moore <> Thu, 01 April 2021 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5AD3A12E6 for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZSYGLYrb9ZuY for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B1583A12E2 for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAF75C00EE for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 10:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 01 Apr 2021 10:00:12 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=a/MJO4ClOLfesleavXWOmmBqMlREbI6mDQWX78I+k 08=; b=TMgjwt6wu1TiIJGwPJlrurxpv+EAs7tPVLVtxmlv1F4sRNFPeZzHrm+ri bzO53wFTjzEYih8pJsqmpcwvKXuRZMt98IeaMS7gnhgDAYsZstFy2tnzkbCyhZxM PpIYdgvs6E5mTJVjiBN66hkDatOt3i97iD0/LMkVHhENpICfe0mOrSCpURGD5CvQ ZVSNudw7dlIY1g8lw/qmmL+af6DXlzI+UXB2HWlqj81SHSbutSt4Hwhdrive3s+6 Gf0Z2fqACWnkBUVW1Cda8/2FWrQGeg7wxZjClqDQi2KRmCQEvOwz9gR/Vl2VKGV1 h/f9ya91lEX5aO+WEMQojNgYWO3HQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:7NFlYCOOP4G_Ua48fCvG6vaDhp9TLqK-_cTTm9XUoXdIX3L7JJtnuw> <xme:7NFlYJ5QA4hrWEUya7doWKWGGaXEIQCmVgLxYkaHVFzrvFnmsnWPD-gBWn5uk5KhN uKgukSo1izlmg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeigedgieejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepjeefrddu udefrdduieelrdeiudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:7NFlYE2PuI_LRhdmxStXrPLK1OaLPs230DmLybWIEfaX3PVW5-9yvA> <xmx:7NFlYCxzwdoJvTp0thl9yAcEBpfbZRFJN0WfnQdDVHTKtCYIS9xewA> <xmx:7NFlYGvsKo-eCC_q6vlbkWBvI6zq_QX15Gzemf_HUn9-85GOG8FRgg> <xmx:7NFlYCdamwIrt4UcbZpbFVkbyrG5ANftCnt_VDkpEPFxlmBBRNKIKw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2266C240067 for <>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 10:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
References: <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 10:00:11 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] REMINDER: Terminology-related discussions to
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:00:40 -0000

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 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.