Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

First, let me say that I am broadly in favor of this proposal.
IMO, DISPATCH-style WGs have been very successful in both
SEC and ART. I have a couple of small comments.

Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/gendispatch/
>
> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-gendispatch/
>
> The GENDISPATCH working group is a DISPATCH-style working group (see RFC
> 7957) chartered to consider proposals for new work in the GEN area,
including
> proposals for changes or improvements to the IETF process and process
> documents. The working group is chartered to identify, or help create, an
> appropriate venue for the work. The working group will not consider any
> technical standardization work.

I think you could read this two ways:

1. This WG won't do any standards
2. This WG won't do any technical work

So as a concrete example, suppose I had a standards track proposal to
require that WG chairs all wear powdered wigs, that would not be
technical, but I take from the list of options below that it would not
be able to actually advance the work itself, but only recommend
a next step. Is that correct?

In that case, perhaps:
"The Working Group will not directly progress any standards
work itself".

If you mean the latter, maybe just remove the word "standardization"

> Proposed new work may be deferred in cases where the WG does not have
enough
> information for the chairs to determine consensus. New work may be
rejected
> in cases where there is not sufficient WG interest 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.

We have found this to be a key clause for other DISPATCH-style WGs
so glad to see it here.

-Ekr

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:48 PM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The review period for this charter is a little longer than usual since
> this is a proposal for a process-oriented WG that did not go through the
> BOF process. As the charter text indicates, the idea of this WG is to help
> streamline the consideration of process proposals and leverage the WG
> chairs to help guide process discussions. Feedback is welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper
> General Area AD
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2019, at 11:44 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > A new IETF WG has been proposed in the General Area. The IESG has not
> made
> > any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
> > provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
> the
> > IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by 2019-10-11.
> >
> > General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Current status: Proposed WG
> >
> > Chairs:
> >  Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
> >  Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
> >
> > Assigned Area Director:
> >  Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
> >
> > General Area Directors:
> >  Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
> >
> > Mailing list:
> >  Address: gendispatch@ietf.org
> >  To subscribe:
> >  Archive:
> >
> > Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/gendispatch/
> >
> > Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-gendispatch/
> >
> > The GENDISPATCH working group is a DISPATCH-style working group (see RFC
> > 7957) chartered to consider proposals for new work in the GEN area,
> including
> > proposals for changes or improvements to the IETF process and process
> > documents. The working group is chartered to identify, or help create, an
> > appropriate venue for the work. The working group will not consider any
> > technical standardization work.
> >
> > Guiding principles for the proposed new work include:
> >
> > 1. Providing a clear problem statement, historical context, motivation,
> and
> > deliverables for the proposed new work.
> >
> > 2. Ensuring there has been adequate mailing list discussion reflecting
> > sufficient interest, individuals have expressed a willingness to
> contribute
> > (if appropriate given the subject matter of the proposal) and there is WG
> > consensus before new work is dispatched.
> >
> > 3. Looking for and identifying commonalities and overlap amongst
> published or
> > ongoing work in the GEN area, within the IESG, or within the IETF LLC.
> >
> > Options for handling new work include:
> >
> > - Directing the work to an existing WG.
> >
> > - Developing a proposal for a BOF.
> >
> > - Developing a charter for a new WG.
> >
> > - Making recommendations that documents be AD-sponsored (which ADs may
> or may
> > not choose to follow).
> >
> > - Requesting that the the IESG or the IETF LLC consider taking up the
> work.
> >
> > - Deferring the decision for the new work.
> >
> > - Rejecting the new work.
> >
> > If the group decides that a particular topic needs to be addressed by a
> new
> > WG, the normal IETF chartering process will be followed, including, for
> > instance, IETF-wide review of the proposed charter. Proposals for large
> work
> > efforts SHOULD lead to a BOF where the topic can be discussed in front
> of the
> > entire IETF community. Documents progressed as AD-sponsored would
> typically
> > include those that are extremely simple or make minor updates to existing
> > process documents.
> >
> > Proposed new work may be deferred in cases where the WG does not have
> enough
> > information for the chairs to determine consensus. New work may be
> rejected
> > in cases where there is not sufficient WG interest 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.
> >
> > A major objective of the GENDISPATCH WG is to provide timely, clear
> > dispositions of new efforts. Thus, where there is consensus to take on
> new
> > work, the WG will strive to quickly find a home for it. While most new
> work
> > in the GEN area is expected to be considered in the GENDISPATCH working
> > group, there may be times where that is not appropriate. At the
> discretion of
> > the GEN AD, new efforts may follow other paths. For example, work may go
> > directly to a BOF, may be initiated in other working groups when it
> clearly
> > belongs in that group, or may be directly AD-sponsored.
> >
> > Another major objective of the GENDISPATCH WG is to streamline how the
> IETF
> > community considers process improvements. Community discussions about
> process
> > suggestions that begin on other mailing lists, including ietf@ietf.org,
> will
> > be redirected to the GENDISPATCH mailing list where they will be
> facilitated
> > by the WG chairs. Proponents of process improvements will be encouraged
> to
> > craft concrete proposals for discussion on the GENDISPATCH mailing list,
> with
> > the goal of producing a concrete outcome in bounded time. Direct
> requests to
> > the IESG may also, after proper consideration, be redirected to the WG.
> For
> > proposals to be considered by the WG they will be expected to meet
> guiding
> > principle #1 above.
> >
> > The existence of this working group does not change the IESG's
> > responsibilities as described in RFC 3710. Work related to the IAB,
> IRTF, and
> > RFC Editor processes is out of scope.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>