Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,
At 02:50 PM 25-10-2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>You give plain-text quotations from another message (or messages?), but
>with no Reply-To header or full quoted passages inline, it's hard to provide

There should have been an "In-Reply-To:" header in my message.  I 
probably did something wrong as it was included in the message which 
was submitted.

Please see the following messages for context:

   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KdVwXK9LZ70rj53wol1tpi48k0Q#
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m7jd1XYr6VkB4ErELHlIspovZEo#

>an answer in the proper context, but I will try.  My interpretation (at
>least to the extent I recall) of John's classification of two types of
>process proposals is that it was mostly descriptive, of an "either X or not
>X" sense, and thus uncontroversial.

Ok.

>The role of the IESG in the standards process is described in BCP 9; I
>would characterize what's described there as having the IESG be the primary
>authority for standards decisions, but given the possibility of appeals,
>not the final authority.  There is some degree of terminology definition
>involved, so I could see others providing a different answer.

The point was that the IESG was given the authority to make those 
decisions.  In simple terms, IESG members have the power to make 
those decisions. I doubt that you read that as meaning that you can 
do anything you like or else you would not have mentioned the 
possibility of appeals.

>You did not ask me specifically for my opinion on "members of the
>community" but since I'm replying to the rest of your note I'll make an
>attempt at that as well: to me, taking an action to have an interaction
>with the activities of the IETF is enough to make one a member of the
>community.  That could be as much as reading email on our mailing lists,
>through authoring drafts and RFCs, holding leadership positions, and more.
>Different individuals will of course have different levels of involvement
>in the community, and I acknowledge that there will be situations in which
>the level of involvement will matter for one reason or another, but the
>core idea remains that we are an open community and taking action to be a
>part of it ought to suffice.

Part of being in open community is that you and I can have this 
exchange.  I don't use the word "member" as that can entail having 
some obligations.  Anyway, the important part is what you communicated above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy