Subject: Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:47:56 -0700

Dear Ms Kuehlewind,

There is the following sentence in Mr Klensin's email: "The IETF has 
a rather long and difficult history, with only a few exceptions since 
the POISED and POISSON WGs, of there being two types of process 
change proposals".  Is that incorrect?

There is also the following sentence: "They, and especially ones that 
members of the IESG see as a threat to their authority or the way 
they do things and sometimes as adding work, have tended to 
vanish".  Is the IESG the final authority for all standards decisions?

The term "members of the community" is mentioned in your reply.  What 
does a person have to do become a member of the community?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:50:31 -0700

Hi SM,

You give plain-text quotations from another message (or messages?), but
with no Reply-To header or full quoted passages inline, it's hard to provide
an answer in the proper context, but I will try.  My interpretation (at
least to the extent I recall) of John's classification of two types of
process proposals is that it was mostly descriptive, of an "either X or not
X" sense, and thus uncontroversial.

The role of the IESG in the standards process is described in BCP 9; I
would characterize what's described there as having the IESG be the primary
authority for standards decisions, but given the possibility of appeals,
not the final authority.  There is some degree of terminology definition
involved, so I could see others providing a different answer.

You did not ask me specifically for my opinion on "members of the
community" but since I'm replying to the rest of your note I'll make an
attempt at that as well: to me, taking an action to have an interaction
with the activities of the IETF is enough to make one a member of the
community.  That could be as much as reading email on our mailing lists,
through authoring drafts and RFCs, holding leadership positions, and more.
Different individuals will of course have different levels of involvement
in the community, and I acknowledge that there will be situations in which
the level of involvement will matter for one reason or another, but the
core idea remains that we are an open community and taking action to be a
part of it ought to suffice.

-Ben

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:41:39 -0700

Hi Ben,
>with no Reply-To header or full quoted passages inline, it's hard to provide

There should have been an "In-Reply-To:" header in my message.  I 
probably did something wrong as it was included in the message which 
was submitted.

Please see the following messages for context:

   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KdVwXK9LZ70rj53wol1tpi48k0Q#
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m7jd1XYr6VkB4ErELHlIspovZEo#

>X" sense, and thus uncontroversial.

Ok.

>involved, so I could see others providing a different answer.

The point was that the IESG was given the authority to make those 
decisions.  In simple terms, IESG members have the power to make 
those decisions. I doubt that you read that as meaning that you can 
do anything you like or else you would not have mentioned the 
possibility of appeals.

>part of it ought to suffice.

Part of being in open community is that you and I can have this 
exchange.  I don't use the word "member" as that can entail having 
some obligations.  Anyway, the important part is what you communicated above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy