Skip to main content

General Area Dispatch
charter-ietf-gendispatch-02

Yes

Roman Danyliw
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Mirja Kühlewind)

No Objection

Éric Vyncke
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-09 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Roman Danyliw
Yes
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Adam Roach Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Sent

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-10) Not sent

                            
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2019-10-16 for -00-09) Sent
  Guiding principles for the proposed new work include:
  [...]
  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.

nit: this list does not have a parallel construction; perhaps "enough
indivdiuals" would help?

  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.

Can work be rejected because the WG thinks it is a bad idea?  (Is that
supposed to be part of "not sufficient WG interest"?)
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-09) Not sent

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-09) Not sent