(Untitled)
agenda-interim-2020-gendispatch-03-gendispatch-01-01

# Gendispatch Interim
Monday 2020-09-07 11:00-13:00 UTC
Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Pete Resnick

Webex: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mf75d83e0c6c2d55506cc51db56334b42

Minutes & Bluesheet:
https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2020-gendispatch-03-gendispatch

(Please remember to login before editing this page. Check to see if you are
logged in by clicking the [n online] button. If you aren't go press the [Sign
In] button at https://codimd.ietf.org/)

Minute takers: Francesca Palombini,

## Bluesheet

1. Francesca Palombini, Ericsson
2. Pete Resnick, Episteme
3.

## Agenda & Minutes

### Chair intro (5 minutes)

#### This is an IETF meeting

[Note well](https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/note-well/) applies.

#### Reminder: we are looking to answer the dispatch question.

- The discussion on content should be kept on the lines of if/what the IETF
should work on, as that impacts the "where". - We are not trying to solve the
problem, we are trying to figure out what part of this area the IETF should
work on. - Helpful: what would be a satisfactory output to the discussion (BCP,
informational, updates to the RFC Style Guide, changes to the idnits tool,
Gen-Art review guidelines, something similar to W3C manual of style:
https://w3c.github.io/manual-of-style/#inclusive, ...) - we have gone through
minutes [1], jabber logs [2], and gendispatch mailing list discussion
(including the thread starting at [3]) and tried to summarize the discussion
here (see below)

#### Summary from Interim 1, ([see
minutes](https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2020-gendispatch-01/minutes/minutes-interim-2020-gendispatch-01-202009012000-00))

* People in the room started from "probably AD sponsored", but there was a
shift as the session went on and things were starting to lean towards a BoF or,
with even a bit more support, a WG.

* There were still a few people who thought the work should not progress.

* We did not get a good sense for which of the choices (reject, AD-sponsored,
BoF/WG) people felt, "I definitely want this one and I can't live with the
others" vs. "this is my preference, but I can live with this other one". We'll
be listening for those comments on Monday, and on the list after we post the
summary of Monday's session.

* The opinions were quite varied on the particular documents. It seems that
everybody had some complaints about each document, and that most people had
some support for some sections of all of the documents. We are going to want to
suss out what recommendation the group is going to make for which document(s)
to start with (if any) if the consensus is for the work to move forward.

* There was a good deal of support for some other kinds of activities (IAB
program, other discussion venues), but those seemed independent of the
document-related issues above.

### Terminology proposals:

* Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs -
Mallory
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-knodel-terminology-04
    [-
    slides](https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2020-gendispatch-01/slides/slides-interim-2020-gendispatch-01-sessa-draft-knodel-terminology-00)

* Effective Terminology in IETF drafts - Bron
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01
    [-
    slides](https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2020-gendispatch-01/slides/slides-interim-2020-gendispatch-01-sessa-draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-00.pdf)

* Avoiding Exclusionary Language in RFCs - Keith
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moore-exclusionary-language-00
    [-
    slides](https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2020-gendispatch-01/slides/slides-interim-2020-gendispatch-01-sessa-draft-moore-exclusionary-language-00)

### Discussion

*[PR]:Pete Resnick