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

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 10:55:00 -0800

The General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) WG in the General Area of the IETF is
undergoing rechartering. 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
([email-masked]) by 2021-12-13.

General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Active WG

Chairs:
  Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
  Kirsty Paine <[email-masked]>

Assigned Area Director:
  Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>

General Area Directors:
  Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>

Mailing list:
  Address: [email-masked]
  To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/

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. GENDISPATCH is chartered to identify, or to help create, an
appropriate venue for new work. GENDISPATCH will not consider any technical
standardization work.

Guiding principles for 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, enough 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 among published or
   ongoing work in the GEN area, the IESG, the IAB, the IETF LLC, the IRTF,
   other SDOs, or the wider technical community.

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 relevant bodies, including but not limited to the IESG, the
  IAB, the IRTF, or the IETF LLC, consider taking up the work in some form.

- Deferring the decision for the new work.

- Rejecting the new work.

If GENDISPATCH 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 GENDISPATCH does not have
enough information for the chairs to determine consensus. New work may be
rejected in cases where there is not sufficient interest in GENDISPATCH 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 GENDISPATCH is to provide timely, clear dispositions of
new efforts. Thus, where there is consensus to take on new work, GENDISPATCH
will strive to quickly find a home for it (usually within a few months).
While most new work in the GEN area is expected to be considered in
GENDISPATCH, there may be times when 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.

While it is inevitable that some discussion of the merits of a proposal
brought to GENDISPATCH are necessary in order to evaluate the appropriate
disposition of the proposal, GENDISPATCH is not chartered to actually do the
work proposed. Full discussions of proposed work should take place where
GENDISPATCH directs the work, whether that is in a WG or BOF, the IETF
discussion list or Last Call list in the case of an AD-sponsored document, or
in a forum designated by the relevant body to which the work was directed.

The existence of GENDISPATCH does not change the IESG's responsibilities and
discretion as described in RFC 3710. Work related to the IAB, IETF LLC, IRTF,
and RFC Editor processes is out of scope.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 08:45:07 +1300

>  Work related to the IAB, IETF LLC, IRTF,

Hang on... does that mean that any proposal to update BCP101 is out of scope?
That can't be right. I assume this is intended to make IETF LLC internal
procedures out of scope, but in that case the statement is too general.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:50:32 +0200

Hi,

> procedures out of scope, but in that case the statement is too general.

that text already exists in the current charter, FWIW, and wasn't changed.

I think this is not only about LLC internal procedures, but also many other topics which are under the control of the named bodies. Do you have a suggestion for how to rephrase that?

(As for updates to BCP101, I could see "bugfix" revisions be done via gendispatch, but anything major would likelt require a new WG.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 15:07:50 +1300

Hi Lars,

> that text already exists in the current charter, FWIW, and wasn't changed.

It *has* been changed. The existing charter says:
"Work related to the IAB, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope."
The proposed update says:
"Work related to the IAB, IETF LLC, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope."

The old version is quite correct: the IETF has no control over IAB, IRTF and RFC Editor processes. But that does not apply to the LLC, which is *our* service performing a role that the IETF defined in the first place, in BCP 101. I cannot see how that is out of scope.
  
> I think this is not only about LLC internal procedures, but also many other topics which are under the control of the named bodies. Do you have a suggestion for how to rephrase that?

Just revert to the previous text.

> (As for updates to BCP101, I could see "bugfix" revisions be done via gendispatch, but anything major would likelt require a new WG.

Absolutely, especially if there was ever a serious proposal to update the role or constitution of the LLC. But draft-somebody-gendispatch-bcp101update might well be the starting point.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:23:00 +0200

Hi,

> "Work related to the IAB, IETF LLC, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope."

ah - I get it now. Sorry for misreading.

Yes, I think reverting that to the original text is fine.

Thanks,
Lars