General Area Dispatch
|Document||Proposed charter||General Area Dispatch WG (gendispatch)|
|Title||General Area Dispatch|
|State||IESG Review (Charter for Approval, Selected by Secretariat) Initial chartering|
|IESG||Responsible AD||Alissa Cooper|
|Charter Edit AD||Alissa Cooper|
On agenda of 2019-10-17 IESG telechat
Has enough positions to pass.
|Send notices to||(None)|
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. The working group is chartered to identify, or help create, an appropriate venue for the work. The working group will not consider any technical standardization work. Guiding principles for the 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, 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 amongst published or ongoing work in the GEN area, within the IESG, or within the IETF LLC. 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 the the IESG or the IETF LLC consider taking up the work. - Deferring the decision for the new work. - Rejecting the new work. If the group 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 the WG does not have enough information for the chairs to determine consensus. New work may be rejected in cases where there is not sufficient WG interest 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 the GENDISPATCH WG is to provide timely, clear dispositions of new efforts. Thus, where there is consensus to take on new work, the WG will strive to quickly find a home for it. While most new work in the GEN area is expected to be considered in the GENDISPATCH working group, there may be times where 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. Another major objective of the GENDISPATCH WG is to streamline how the IETF community considers process improvements. Community discussions about process suggestions that begin on other mailing lists, including firstname.lastname@example.org, will be redirected to the GENDISPATCH mailing list where they will be facilitated by the WG chairs. Proponents of process improvements will be encouraged to craft concrete proposals for discussion on the GENDISPATCH mailing list, with the goal of producing a concrete outcome in bounded time. Direct requests to the IESG may also, after proper consideration, be redirected to the WG. For proposals to be considered by the WG they will be expected to meet guiding principle #1 above. The existence of this working group does not change the IESG's responsibilities and discretion as described in RFC 3710. Work related to the IAB, IRTF, and RFC Editor processes is out of scope. A review of the efficacy of this working group will be undertaken 18-24 months after its chartering.
No milestones for charter found.