Skip to main content

Minutes IETF108: gendispatch

Meeting Minutes General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) WG
Date and time 2020-07-30 13:00
Title Minutes IETF108: gendispatch
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2020-09-02

# Gendispatch @ IETF108

Thursday, July 30 2020, 13:00-13:50 UTC

Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Pete Resnick

Minute takers: Bron Gondwana, Adrian Farrell, Dan York


Jabber Logs:

## Introduction
Slides: [Chairs

* Pete had some issues [with screen sharing].

* Agenda bashing: we're short on time, so no open mic, just recap at the end.
* Dispatch process described - we don't adopt drafts or work on them directly
in gendispatch. * Not trying to solve problems in this meeting. Presenters,
please tell us what you think would be an optimal outcome.

## Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs
(Niels ten Oever, 10 min)
* draft: [Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and
RFCs]( * discussion:
* Slides: [Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and


* Niels presenting
* Work started in 2018. Recently interest revived.
* Conversation off-list different than on-list.
* Want RFCs to be readable to global network of people.  Want RFCs to be
relevant and readable for as many people as possible. * Thanks for the useful
feedback from the list - changed to clarify main goal and purpose. * Some
comments were too detailed for inclusion in the draft


* **John Levine**: appreciate that the authors brought this up.  Something we
should deal with, but don't think this draft is a good place to start.  The
discussion of slavery is too specific and the blacklist discussion is just
wrong.  It simultaneously trivialises the issue and ignores words that have
actual racial problems (such as grandfather)
    * Pete: do you have a preferred form for the work?\
    * John: Too complex for AD Sponsored.  As RFC Editor - do not want to make
    the editors into the language police.

* **Andrew Campling**: document certainly provoked interesting discussion on
the list!  Agree that the topic may need to be address, but don't think this
document is a good starting point.  Doesn't appear to give a mechanism for
agreeing which words should be avoided.  Think Barbara's suggestion was a good
starting point. My personal dislike of a word is not good enough reason for it
to be excluded.
    * Pete: suggestion for a forum?
    * Andrew: not familar enough with choices.

* **Jason Livingood**: Good starting point because it started a discussion.
Don't go through administrivia of a new group - should just land in existing
group or have AD support. Lots of stuff could be streamlined if we want to go
into the nuances in each section. This is a seed of how to go forward.

* **Dan Harkins**: Want to echo what John said - we want to make our drafts and
RFCs much more applicable to a worldwide audience and make them easier to
understand, but the discussion of racism and slavery is misguided and suffers
from a condescending racism itself. About next steps: I almost want to say send
to HRPC, but that is an insular group as well. Maybe a BCP on using good
metaphors is valuable, but sure of the way forward.

* Pete Resnick directs meeting to Jabber to comment on where the work should be

* **Rich Salz**: Independent of whether or not this is a good starting point -
many drafts start somewhere and end up somewhere different.  In favour of a
working group chartered to work on the issues, and it can choose if it adopts
this document.

* **Bob Hinden**: I support the IETF taking this work on. I think it's
important. I like Barbara Stark's email. We don't have to do this from scratch.
Others have already done work. I lean toward AD-sponsored with a separate
mailing list. Doing a WG for one document has too much overhead. Maybe the IETF
chair is the right person (i.e., AD to sponsor). Will need something more
"operational" to point at list of terms and alternatives. The Apple document is
a good example (although broader than just this topic).

* Queue Cut. Ted Lemon redirected to Jabber

* Pete is hearing: people want a mailing list for discussion. Keen to hear from
Alissa about what she's willing to take on.

* **Alissa Cooper** : really interesting discussion.  Interesting noting
dramatic difference in tone here vs tone on ietf@ietf.  Appreciate the desire
to want a forum for discussion.  An IETF mailing list seems a really
problematic way to talk about this subject.  Extremely painful to read through,
and that dynamic pushes people out of the discussion who need to be there and
are absent from it entirely in its current form. It's almost like having
meetings like this is a better way. Agree that AD sponsorship seems quite
fraught. IESG can set own guidelines - GENART, while working out how to come to
IETF consensus about some higher level statement.

* Chairs: We're well over time.  Discussion on list about how to dispatch this.
 At least set up a mailing list to gather the people who want to talk on this.
Even if discussion is limited to what do we want to do next.

* **Mark Nottingham**: clarification question - I think that it is hard to have
this on "the IETF list" but it would be easier on a dedicated list.

* **Alissa Cooper**: I meant any IETF list. We don't have the mechanism to
handle this type of discussion. Note that we brought the IESG Statement to the
main IETF list because that is where it needs to be advertised so everyone
knows about it.

* **Ted Lemon via Jabber**: IETF does a poor job of hard discussions in general
- need to address that problem if we want to solve this problem!

* **Pete**: Willing to moderate this on the GENDISPATCH mailing list to have
the DISPATCH discussion (where should we discuss this document?). Likes the
idea of interim meetings. Asks everyone to join that mailing list and
participate in the discussion. * * Will capture what has been said in the
Jabber room.  Thanks, I'm moving down to the next bit.

## Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
(Stephen Farrell, 15 min)
* draft: [Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee
* discussion:
* Slides:


* Confident this will be easier topic.
* Something was done for THIS year, question what to do for next couple of
years.  This is an experiment which can run for 3 years, then reverts back. *
Think this could be AD sponsored - needs answer soonish.  There's a working
group `shmoo` which can watch the experiment and work on longer-term plans. *
There's a mailing list for this already (eligiblity-discuss) * There's a VENN
diagram which shows now nomcom eligability would be altered by this. Numbers
roughly the same, but diagram shows different people. * ASK: finish discussion
on list, then find AD willing to sponsor it (Alissa or someone else)


* **Ted Hardie**: Thanks for writing the draft, but disagree that it's
appropriate for AD.  Too many experiments in one document. It talks about
particpation models on multiple axes. Better to have WG discussion in shmoo or
in a mini WG. Allows participaition by someone in an IETF formal role in the
last 5 years. It is important for us to have .... (?). Too complicated for AD
sponsored. Hence either schmoo or its own WG

* **Stephen**: Disagree about too complicated. Any change would have
hard-to-foresee consequences. That's why it's an experiment.

* **Michael Richardson**: Thinks there is urgency to this. Not for SHMOO, needs
to be addressed before that. We have a problem starting in March 2021 (in terms
of eligilibity).

* **Robert Sparks**: I also encourage not moving it to shmoo. It would be a
distraction from what they need to work on. I'd be happy wth a small focused WG
or it could continue on the existing list.

* **Samuel Weiler**: Would like to see us put something into place as an
interim measure - recognising that the need for this is not just for the nomcom
- needs to address recall committees too. Concerned that temporary solution in
place does not address this edge case.

* Pete: not sure have heard a solid answer on what to do about it.

* **Alissa Cooper**: Sounds like people want to get something done fast because
we have a timeline. Would like to get a sense for whether people are opposed to
doing this on the existing list with AD-sponsored.

* **HUM** do you object to having this AD sponsored and using
**eligibility-discuss** mailing list for discussion:
    * Result: PIANISSIMO

* **Pete**: A few poeple object. Does anyone want to jump in with a different
view (from Ted) about why we shouldn't do that. -- No jumpers.
    * If Alissa wants to go forward in that direction, then there is not strong

## Process for Working Group Adoption of Drafts
(Michael Richardson or Fernando Gont, 15 min)
* draft: [Process for Working Group Adoption of
* discussion:
and *
background materials: [RFC7221]( * Slides:


* In the past there's been lots of discussion about making the RPC and IESG
parts of a document lifecycle go faster. * This group, interested in the
working group part of the cycle.  Pathologies observed!
    * spends a long time being individual draft, then adopted immediately to
* additional pathology, external SDO does all the work, then adopt and lots of
critical review within WG. * Problem: adoption has different meanings in
different groups. * WE THINK: groups should adopt documents as soon as they
have agreement on the problem statement.


* **Joel Halpern**: would help us if we reach agreement on what adoption means.
 Disagree on what adoption means.  Does NOT mean time on agendas.  Adoption
means "the group agrees this is a good basis for working".  Anything else
adopted creates a mess for the WG (people outside see it as the group agrees
with it)

    * MCR: what it we had a new milestone (in between individual draft and
    adopted) - Joel, don't like paradigm.  Pete: discuss where? Joel, belongs
    on IETF but it gets crowded.

* **Bron Gondwana**: What would be the first draft adopted? Just an Abstract?
    * MCR:

* **Bob Hinden**: Think we need a general set of rules for what adoption means.
 Have seen many cases where adoption is similar to WGLC.  But there needs to be
a document you can work on.

* **Adrian Farrel**: I am concerned about introducing rules for this sort of
thing. I believe that we do not want to close down the flexiblity in how WGs
are run for different circumstances. Can we look at this in the context of RFC
7221 and say what is missing there and maybe tighten it up a bit.
    * MCR: Just do a 7221 bis? Adrian: Yes
    * MCR: Where to do it? Adrian: It's so small: just do it.

* **Ruediger Volk**: Would like to re-emphasise Joel's comment that for
adoption it's essential that the draft brought in is considered "good" in some
way.  Have seen too many adoptions where people were shy to have the discussion
about whether it's a good idea up front.  Which means that the discussion only
happens at last call, which is much more unreasonable.

* **Pete**: We need an interim to sort some of this to find a reasonable way to
dispatch this work. OK?

* **Alissa**: that's fine to do an interim. I think the 7221bis discussion can
continue on the list.

Please join in gathertown!