General Area Dispatch
charter-ietf-gendispatch-02

[Ballot comment]
> 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.

This reads a bit strange to me. Is this text necessary? One thing is to say "Gendispatch is not chartered to actually do the work" (which is the sentence before this one, and makes sense, and is very clear), but this is very specifically talking about exchanges on the mailing list (what are "full discussions" vs "normal discussions"?). To me it is obvious that once the item has been dispatched, there should be no need to keep discussing it in the gendispatch list, as it either moved to its own discussion area or got rejected or dropped, which is why this sentence is strange.

Francesca

[Ballot comment]
    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.

Can work be rejected because the WG thinks it is a bad idea?  (Is that
supposed to be part of "not sufficient WG interest"?)

    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.

It's a little bit hard to square "out of scope" with a willingness to
request that those bodies consider taking up work on a given topic.

[Ballot comment]
I question whether AD sponsored documents should be discussed on the IETF discussion mailing list, or whether it would be better for those discussions to continue on the Gendispatch mailing (or an alternative open small mailing list)?  It is certainly possible that some individuals who may be interested in participating in these drafts are subscribed to Gendispatch but choose not to be subscribed to the IETF discussion mailing list.

[Ballot comment]
  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"?)