Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 9/29/21 5:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A couple of points on the draft:
>
> 1) The current BCP45 states "It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures." That has been deleted in the draft, which leaves a gap.
>
> I think that the list of appropriate postings should include something like:
>
>   * Discussions of IETF direction, policy, and the standards process in general.
>
> (and perhaps mention that drafts in this area go to GENDISPATCH.)


As currently constituted GENDISPATCH mostly serves to hide discussions 
that are of broad community interest, creating the risk that major 
process changes will be implemented without significant community review 
and feedback.  Also, in the past some GENDISPATCH chairs have made 
efforts to restrict such discussions along very narrow lines, e.g. 
insisting that all discussion on a topic be narrowly centered on a very 
biased draft document. Also, the constraints in GENDISPATCH's charter 
overly constrain the recommendations that GENDISPATCH can make.

I don't think that discussion of such matters should be tightly 
controlled, beyond normal guidelines for conduct; nor that such 
discussion should be forcibly split between GENDISPATCH and other 
lists.   I also think it's unhelpful to insist that there be a draft in 
place before any such discussion can take place (in GENDISPATCH even 
moreso than with most technical discussions). More recently GENDISPATCH 
chairs have allowed some wider ranging discussion, but this has been a 
problem in the past.

So I would not want to see GENDISPATCH enshrined in BCP45bis.

I actually believe that the GENDISPATCH group be shut down, or at least, 
that its charter be drastically altered.

Keith