Thanks, Pete, inline
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:29:40PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2020, at 13:15, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> > If the topic is meant to be disucssed an a gendispatch interrim, would
> > it not too be
> > appropriate to ask for the discussion to go to gendispatch mailing list
> > until that
> > group has decided on a better place ?
>
> Speaking as one of the two gendispatch chairs: I supported the idea of
> bringing this topic to a gendispatch interim because I think in a (virtual)
> f2f we can probably sort out a way for this discussion to be had in a
> reasonable forum,
I can not see how we can have a discussion about something
that changes potentially any future RFC written (in its language),
without designating a mailing list as an authoritative place
to have and coordinate the discussion on. As i said, it would
not be inclusive to all the community members that for various reasons
would not be able to participate in an interim
(btw: this mail exchange probably would better be done on gendispatch
as it is about how and where to have the discussion. But given how
IETF mailman hates Bcc its really difficult to move discussions to a
different list midflight).
> bring that solution back to the gendispatch list, and then
> have gendispatch recommend to the Gen AD what to do with this work. (Which
> is not to say that we will definitely recommend that the work continue; we
> have a number of possible outcomes. But I think we can successfully have
> that conversation.)
>
> However, I did not, as one of the gendispatch chairs, sign up to moderate
> the entire discussion of IETF guidance or policy around oppressive or
> exclusionary language in documents.
Sure. A simple solution would be to quickly create a mailing lisst
to have the mailing list on. I for once did learn from the current
IETF mailing list exchange and will have better arguments for
a gendispatch discussion than i would have without the IETF mailing
list discussion.
> I agree with the IETF Chair that the
> discussion on the IETF list was at least unproductively spinning its wheels
> and probably causing harm in and of itself, and that a pause in the
> conversation on the IETF list was justified.
Would be great if you could explain your reasons for saying so. My
impression was exactly the opposite. Then again, this discussion
is now prohibited.
> I also understand that having a
> gendispatch interim and the subsequent discussion on the gendispatch list in
> order to dispatch the topic to some other forum (or to reject the work item)
> is likely to involve some amount of discussion on the merits of the topic,
> and I'm prepared to moderate that level of discussion. But I'm not inclined
> to be given the task to actually bring this discussion to conclusion.
Ok.
> It's out of charter for gendispatch
Ok.
> I don't think it will be productive on the gendispatch list
Until gendispatch makes a decision, it will be very difficult
to clearly separate the process meta-discussion from the payload discussion.
Given how process meta-discussion is what gendispatch is for, it would
be most easy to have the discussion first on gendispatch and ask to focus on
the aspect that helps on the decision making for the next step.
I think to a large extend this is already what the ietf mailing
list debate was. Using examples to scope the possible process
resulting.
> it's more than a bit beyond what I'm willing to take on right now.
Sure.
> I am sorry that gendispatch was unable to have dispatched this before the
> discussion on the IETF list got this far. But we are where we are. I'm
> committed to getting an interim or two scheduled for "a few days plus 2
> weeks" from now, and to push the list to make a recommendation to the AD
> exceedingly quickly after that. That's all I can do.
Thanks
Toerless
