►
From YouTube: IETF108-GENDISPATCH-20200730-1300
Description
GENDISPATCH meeting session at IETF108
2020/07/30 1300
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/proceedings/
A
Yes,
welcome
everybody
to
gen
dispatch
next
slide,
please,
and
also
we
only
have
50
minutes
today,
so
we'll
try
to
be
shortened
to
the
point
next
slide,
please.
A
A
C
D
In
another
session,
where
people
were
having
issues
with
doing
that,
I
think
you
may
want
to
just
try
to
share
only
the
window
I'll.
Do
that
hold
on
and
maybe
not
have
it
full
screen
just
have
it
as
part
right,
largely.
B
A
A
We're
gonna,
have
steven
talk
about
the
eligibility
expand
document
and
the
michael
will
take
the
john
dispatch
draft
adoption
and
the
last
five
minutes
are
not
really
open
mic.
I
think
that
we
are
really
short
on
time
today,
so
this
will
be
for
recap.
So
next
slide,
please.
A
This
is
just
a
slight
reminder
for
the
dispatch
process.
The
ground
rules
is
that
we
do
recommend
next
steps
for
new
work.
We
do
not
adopt
draft
and
these
are
the
possible
outcomes,
so
we
will
direct
work
to
existing
working
group
or
propose
a
new
focus
working
group.
A
B
On
this
point,
I
want
to
remind
folks
that
our
point
here
is
not
to
actually
work
the
documents
where
there's
gonna
be
a
short
presentation
of
the
document.
Just
so
folks
have
in
mind
the
topic,
but
we're
not
trying
to
actually
solve
the
problem
in
this
particular
session,
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
dispatch.
A
A
F
So
I
had
the
great
pleasure
to
co-author
this
draft
together
with
mallory
nodal.
We
started
doing
this
work
in
2018,
but
recently
interest
has
revived
due
to
a
sector-wide
awareness
on
exclusionary
terms,
and
this
has
created
quite
some
conversation,
both
in
2018
and
now
as
well,
and
we've
received
a
remarkable
amount
of
off-list
email
conversations
that
had
quite
another
character
than
the
conversations
that
we
had
on
the
mailing
list,
which
I
think
is
interesting
next
slide.
Please.
F
F
Are
we
on
non-objectives?
Yes,
so
what
we
are
explicitly
not
trying
to
do
is
change
wording
of
existing
rfcs
and
ids,
but
we
want
to
start
a
conversations
about
language
in
current
and
upcoming
work.
We
do
not
either
want
to
forbid
words
or
language
or
anything.
What
we
do
want
is
authors
to
take
responsibility
for
the
influence
that
they
have.
The
ietf
is
important
not
to
us,
but
also
for
the
world,
and
so
is
the
internet.
Infrastructure
in
internet
architecture
and
with
great
power
comes
great
responsibility.
F
F
But
people
in
our
community
have
worked
on
this,
as
well
as
we've
seen
in
several
rfcs
and
codespell,
even
adopted
our
draft
and
implemented
it
in
their
tooling,
which
then
also
directly
provided
some
tooling
for
parts
of
the
word
suggested
next
slide,
please
so,
based
on
some
excellent
reviews,
we
received
thanks
a
lot
for
that.
We
clarified
the
main
goal:
a
bit
further
made
the
language
more
accessible,
provided,
more
alternatives
and
removed
language.
That
was
not
really
clarifying.
F
Also,
really
thanks
a
lot
for
the
excellent
discussions
we
had
on
the
use
of
robot
and
robotnik
in
in
the
czech
language,
which
was
a
very
insightful
discussion,
but
I
think
it
was
too
complex
to
edit
in
the
draft.
So
thanks
a
lot
for
the
pull
requests,
we
removed
it
from
the
draft,
but
it
was
a
good
discussion
thanks
a
lot
slide,
six
final
slides.
F
Well,
we
do
hope
that
this
draft
can
become
can
find
its
way
to
become
an
area
director
sponsored
rfc
in
a
next
version
we
might
add
a
reference
to
rfc
7704.
F
We
received
on
the
list
some
excellent
suggestions
for
other
exclusionary
terms,
such
as
balkanization
and
third
world
countries,
which
is
not
a
very
helpful
category
at
all.
So
thanks
for
the
suggestions
for
additional
work
and
directions
already
shared
on
the
gen
dispatch
list
and
really
looking
forward
to
discuss
thanks
a
lot.
A
G
Thank
you.
I
I
really
appreciate
that
the
authors
brought
this
up
by
the
way.
Can
you
hear
me
because
I
can't
see
myself?
Yes,
just
fine.
G
By
the
way,
yes,
I'm
john
me
think
I
appreciate
that
the
authors
brought
this
up
and
I
think
it's
something
we
should
deal
with,
but
I
do
not
think
that
this
draft
is
a
good
place
to
start.
I
I
sent
him
a
longer
message
about
this
to
the
list.
The
discussion
of
slavery
is
is
is
way
too
specific
to
to
the
western
hemisphere.
G
The
discussion
of
blacklist
is
just
wrong.
Blacklist
is
about
freedom
of
association
and
freedom
of
speech
and
not
about
race,
and
it
you
know
it
it
simultaneously
trivializes
the
issue,
and
it
gives
you
know
it,
and
it
ignores
issues
it
ignores
where
words
that
have
actual
racial
problems
like
grandfather
is
a
verb,
so
I
would
be
means,
so
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
any
process
way
to
say
this,
I
think
we
should
work
on
this,
but
not
not
starting
from
this
draft.
G
My
guess
is
it's
too
complicated
to
be
ad
really.
It
really
needs
a
working
group
because,
as
we
have
seen
from
the
discussion,
a
lot
of
people
react
to
this
in
a
lot
of
complicated
ways
and
it's,
I
think
it's
really
essential
that
we
have
meaningful
consensus
if
we're
going
to
get
any
useful
work
out
of
this,
oh
and
finally,
wearing
my
not
really
rfc
editor
hat,
I
absolutely
am
not
willing
to
make
the
art
the
rfc
editors
into
the
language
police,
so
we
have
to
implement
it.
Some
other
way,
all
right.
B
H
Hi
can
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
just
fine
marvelous,
yes,
I
I
think
this
document
certainly
provoked
an
interesting
discussion
on
the
mailing
list,
so
I
could
be
guilty
of
gross
understatement.
I
I
agree
with
the
last
comment
that
this
is
maybe
a
topic
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
but
I
don't
believe
this
document
gives
a
useful
starting
point.
H
For
example,
it
doesn't
appear
unless
I
missed
it
in
the
document
to
give
a
mechanism
for
how
you
might
agree
what
terms
what
what
words
you
should
be
avoided
and
or
to
simply
give
some
examples
rather
than
an
actual
mechanism.
I
think
that's
quite
a
significant
omission
for
what
it's
worth.
H
H
H
So
to
echo
the
last
input.
Yes,
this
maybe
needs
to
be
addressed,
but
not
in
the
way
that
this
document
suggests.
Thank
you.
B
H
Your
suggestion
for
forum,
I'm
not
familiar
enough
with
all
of
the
forums
to
know
how
this
apologies,
nothing.
A
Comment,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we
need
to
cut
the
queue.
Okay,
bob
you
got
it,
but
after
bob
we
need
to
cut
the
queue
go
ahead.
Jason.
B
I
must
have
missed.
Please
just
jump
in
directly
to
the
to
the
floor.
Don't
bother
re-cueing
yourself,
jason.
E
All
right
no
worries
so
yeah
I
mean
I
do
think
we're.
I
think
splitting
here
is
a
bit
to
say
like.
Is
it
a
good
starting
point
or
not?
I
think
it
is
a
good
starting
point,
because
it
started
discussion
on
an
important
matter,
and
I
appreciate
that
it's
been
able
to
do
that.
So
I
think
it's
a
good
first
step.
I
think
you
know
work
should
proceed.
E
I
don't
don't
think
it
matters,
particularly
if
it's
you
know
where
it
is,
I
would
say,
probably
don't
go
through
all
the
the
administration
of
a
new
working
group
or
something
like
this.
I
think
it
could
just
be
a
draft
that
lands
either
in
some
existing
group
or
you
know,
proceeds
with
a.d
support
or
something
like
this.
E
I'm
sure
if
we
want
to
spend
time
getting
into
like
the
nuances
of
this,
in
that
section
there's
you
know
lots
of
stuff
that
can
be
streamlined
and
so
on,
but
I
think
the
core
idea
behind
it
that
there's
you
know
either
potentially
offensive
or
absolutely
offensive
language
that
needs
to
be
addressed
here
is
an
important
one,
and
that
is
the
seed
of
how
to
start
and
move
forward
with
it.
Thanks.
B
Thanks
jason,
let
me
click
dan
in.
A
And
also
after
that,
we
have
rich
who
just
went
off
the
queue.
J
Okay,
thanks:
can
you
hear
me
yep,
just
fine,
okay,
great
yeah?
I
guess
I
just
want
to
echo
what
what
john
said.
I
think
that
this
the
topic
is
important.
We
we
want
to
make
our
our
giraffes
and
rfcs
much
more
applicable
to
you,
know
a
wider
worldwide
audience
and
make
them
more
easy
to
understand,
but
I
do
think
that
the
whole
discussion
of
racism
and
slavery
is
is
misguided
and
and
distracts
from
the
the
overall
message.
J
It
does
also
suffer
a
little
bit
from
a
kind
of
condescending
racism
itself
that
I
think
really
we
should
avoid
about
next
steps.
I
almost
want
to
say
send
it
to
the
hrpc,
but
that's
a
a
very
insular
group
as
well,
and
I'm
sure
that
you
know
this.
It
would
not
get
the
kind
of
review
that
would
be.
That
would
be
needed,
so
I'm
I'm,
I'm
really
not
sure.
J
I
think
some
kind
of
bcp
on
on
using
good
metaphors
is
is
valuable,
but
I
I
I'm
not
really
sure
of
the
way
forward.
B
Okay
and
so
ted,
we
did
have
the
cue
cut
before
you
jumped
in.
If
you
want
to
pop
something
into
the
jabber
room
and
if
folks
I'm.
I
think
we're
starting
to
hear
that
folks
want
this
worked
on
in
some
forum.
But
this
draft
is
not
an
ideal
starting
point.
If
you
don't
think
that
that's
the
right
approach
definitely
pop
something
into
the
jabber
room,
and
we
will
maybe
reopen
the
queue
for
that
discussion,
but
all
right.
A
K
There
you
go
go
ahead,
chat
with
dan,
while
I
was
just
trying
to
add
my
video
independent
of
whether
or
not
this
is
a
good
starting
point.
I
notice.
I
know
that
many
drafts
start
somewhere
and
by
the
time
they're
adopted
they
end
up
somewhere
fairly
different,
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
a
working
group
and
then,
if
the
working
group
decides
not
to
adopt
this
draft,
so
be
it
they.
But
I
think
a
working
group
charted
to
work
on
the
issues
identified
by
this
document
is
the
way
to
go.
B
All
right,
so
bob
is
up
next,
let
me
get
you
audio
first
and
then
video
go
ahead.
Bob
there.
You
are.
L
Thank
you
bob.
He
knew
you
can
hear
me.
Okay,
yeah,
just
one
good
yeah,
so
I
I
support
the
itf
taking
this
work
on.
I
think
it's
important.
I
do
like
barbara
stark
email
on
the.
We
already
have
quite
a
lot,
because
there
is
a
weird
we
do
not
have
to
do
this
from
scratch.
There
is
a
lot
of
other
groups
are
doing
this.
L
A
lot
of
their
information
is
published.
We
can
point
to
it.
It's
a
good
guide,
we're
not
the
only
ones.
Thinking
about
this,
I'm
a
little
torn
between
a
working
group,
which
I
agree
with
you
know
chartering
discussion.
So
I
guess
I'm
sort
of
leaning
towards
a.d
sponsored,
but
with
a
separate
mailing
list.
Sort
of
you
know,
I
think
doing
a
working
group
for
one
document
is
probably
a
lot
of
overhead.
L
Maybe
the
itf
chair
is
the
right
person
with
a
but
with
a
separate
mailing
list
to
discuss
and
work
work
on
the
draft,
and
I
I
think
the
last
thing
I
think
this
draft
was
good
in
that
it
raised
the
issue.
I
suspect,
when
we're
done,
we'll
want
something,
that's
more
operational
if
I
can
use
that
word.
That
sort
of
just
describes
the
problem
and
then
describes
the
mechanisms
we're
going
to
use
and
point
to
a
list
of
terms
that
we
want
to
avoid
and
suggest
alternatives.
L
B
So
I
think
so
far,
I'm
hearing
and
and
someone
scream
I'm
looking
both
in
the
jab
room
and
listening
to
comments,
someone
scream
if
I've
gotten
this
wrong,
but
I'm
hearing
people
do
want
to
form
for
discussion
a
mailing
list
of
some
sort.
People
are
unclear
on
whether
there
should
be
a
working
group.
It
should
just
be
a
mailing
list
and
80
sponsored
once
something
gets
done
and
I'm
inclined
to
hear
from
alyssa
about
what
she's
going
to
be
willing
to
take
on
alyssa.
M
Yeah
really
interesting
discussion,
also
just
noting,
like
the
dramatic
difference
in
the
tone
of
this
discussion
from
the
discussion
on
itf
at
itf,
it's
really
noticeable.
It's
a
little
hard
to
know
what
to
do
here.
I
mean
like.
M
I
appreciate
the
desire
to
want
to
have
a
forum
for
discussion.
I
will
say
like
an
ietf
mailing
list.
It
seems
just
based
on
recent
evidence
to
be
like
a
really
problematic
way
to
talk
about
this
subject.
You
know
extremely
painful
to
to
live
through
the
reading
of
and
and
sending
of
many
males
about
this,
and
I
feel
like
that
exact
dynamic
pushes
people
out
of
the
discussion
who
need
to
be
there
and
who
are
absent
from
it
entirely
in
its
current
form.
M
As
far
as
I
can
tell
so
that's
an
issue
that
I
don't
really
know
how
to
grapple
with,
because
I
I
think
we
we
need
to
have
you
know
community
discussion
about
this,
but
it's
almost
like
having
meetings
like
this
is
maybe
a
better
way
than.
M
And
forth,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
to
do
about
that.
I
agree
with
the
comments
that
you
know
that
sort
of
ad
sponsorship
of
something
like
this
seems
seems
quite
fraught,
but
I
also
think
we
have
other
vehicles
like
you
know.
I
suggested
this
thing
about
gen,
art
and
and
the
isg
can,
you
know,
adopt
its
own
standards
for
what
are
we
going
to
look
for
when
we
review
documents
because
we
review
every
document?
M
So
I
wonder
if
there's
things
that
we
can
do
in
the
interim,
while
we
figure
out
what
is
the
nature
of
a
of
an
rfc
that
would
get
produced
that
we
could
work
on
in
parallel.
You
know
we
start.
We
start
with
you
know,
taking
action
based
on
some
intermediate
guidance
that
can
be
developed
for
the
directorates
or
for
the
isg
as
we
work
through.
How
do
we
actually
come
to
itf
consensus
about
some
higher
level
statement.
B
Of
coming
to
a
conclusion,
yeah
yeah
francesca:
how
bad
are
we
on
time
here
we're.
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
mean,
I
think
this
was
the
hardest
doc
that
we
were
gonna
have
to
deal
with.
So
I'm
not
too
worried
that
we're
a
little
over
here,
I'm
inclined
to
leave
the
queue
closed
and
push
for
a
little
more
discussion
on
the
list,
just
in
terms
of
how
to
dispatch
this.
But
what
I'm
hearing
so
far
is
at
least,
let's
set
up
a
mailing
list
to
gather
the
people
who
want
to
talk
about
this,
even
if
the
discussion
on
that
mailing
list
is
limited
to
okay.
B
What
are
we
going
to
do
with
the
next
interim
chat
about
this,
because
this
does
seem
like
a
good
tone
for
the
discussion
that
we've
had.
B
N
Okay,
so
you
said
on
the
mailing
list,
but
you
didn't
say
what
mailing
list-
and
I
said
that
because
the
iasg
brought
this
up
on
the
ietf
list,
which
I
was
a
little
surprised
since
we
have
a
gen
dispatch
list
now
and-
and
I
I'll
be
a
little
sneaky
and
say
I
get
on
the
queue
to
say
that
alyssa
said
it's
hard
to
have
these
discussions
on
itf
lists.
I
agree
that
it's
hard
to
have
these
discussions
on
the
ietf
list,
because
it's
the
wild
west.
M
M
So
I
meant
what
I
said:
ietf
lists
not
the
ietf
list
and
we
published
an
the
isg
statement
to
the
ietf
list
because
that's
where
we
publish
all
isg
statements
like
if
we
had
just
posted
it
to
the
website
and
not
told
anybody,
then
we
would
have
gotten
flamed
for
that.
So
that's
why
we
put
it
there.
A
So
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
the
statement
from
ted
lemon
who
is
in
in
the
queue,
but
that
the
ietf
does
a
poor
job
of
having
hard
discussions.
If
you
want
to
have
this
hard
discussion,
I
think
we
need
to
address
the
general
problem
and
more
people
agreeing
to
that.
Just
bringing
this
up.
B
So
I
don't
I
I
feel
like
we
don't
have
a
solid
answer
to
the
dispatch
question
right
now
and
we
could
go
on
for
the
rest
of
the
the
session
with
just
that.
So
I
mean
I'm
certainly
willing
to
moderate
the
discussion
on
gen
dispatch
about
the
dispatch
question
itself.
Should
we
set
up
a
new
mailing
list
for
this
discussion?
B
What
forum
should
we
be
having
those
discussions
in
I
I
hear
alyssa
loud
and
clear
that
even
a
you
know,
a
relatively
tightly
moderated
mailing
list
is
gonna,
be
tricky
to
have
this
discussion
on,
but
I
like
the
idea
of
interim
meetings
and
working
it
that
way
so
we'll
bring
it
to
the
list
and
hopefully
we'll
get
a
good
answer
quickly.
B
Please
folks
do
participate
in
that
discussion
and,
let's
see
if
we
can
get
something
out
of
it
and
we
will
capture
what's
going
on
in
the
jabber
room
about
this
document,
and
I
appreciate
that
discussion.
That's
going
on.
A
B
Yep
so
stephen
get
to
the
next
document
here,
stephen
you're
up
to
bat,
do
you
want
the
do
you
want
the
slide
up
or
do
you
want
the
document
up
slide.
O
First
and
then,
when
it
comes
to
discussion,
you
can
pop
the
document
with
the
part
that
has
the
figures.
If
that's
okay,
all
right,
I
will
do
that.
O
O
There's
a
slide
there,
you
go
so
brian
start
off
his
diaphragm
is
helping
out
the
draft.
Is
there
the
problem,
we're
tackling?
I
hope
everybody
knows
it's
basically
that,
given
that
non-com
eligibility
is
determined
by
meeting
attendance
and
we're
not
attending
in
person,
something
has
to
be
done.
Something
was
done
for
this
year
already
the
question
arises:
how
do
we
handle
the
next
couple
of
years?
O
This
is
a
proposal
for
that
as
a
process,
experiment
which
essentially
means
it
can
run
for
kind
of
three
years
and
then,
if,
if
nothing
else
happens,
we
go
back
to
the
revert
to
the
status
quo,
I
basically
it
defines
some
other
routes
that,
by
which
you
could
become
eligible,
we
can
have
a
look
at
a
picture
of
the
effect
of
that.
I
personally
would
hope
that
this
might
be
something
that
could
be
appropriate
for
ad
sponsorship.
For
two
reasons.
One
is
we
kind
of
need
an
answer,
soon-ish
immediately
and
secondly,
shmu.
O
If
there
are
longer-term
issues
and
things
to
think
about,
there
is
a
working
group
there
shmu,
which
could
watch
this
prosex
experiment
happen
and
then
see
what
to
do
about
it
longer
term
and
then
the
there's
a
mailing
list
for
this
already
eligibility
discuss.
Then
the
only
other
thing
is,
if
you
could
pop
the
picture
of
the
venn
diagrams,
the
first
one
should
be
fine,
so
in
the
draft
itself
just
we've
had
this
proposal
some
months
ago.
I
think
back
around
easter
time.
O
A
few
people
said
what
are
the
numerical
kind
of
consequences
of
the
proposal
and
robert
sparks
kind
of
helped
me
to
get
started
to
try
and
produce
an
answer
to
that.
I
did
produce
an
answer.
Some
people
said.
Oh,
this
is
slightly
other
question
and
then
I
totally
dropped
the
ball.
O
So
I
apologize
for
that,
but
then
eventually
robert
picked
it
up
again
and
so
the
current
draft,
if
you
look
at
the
nice
html
version,
does
have
some
vendor
more
or
less
indicate
that
if
we
apply
these
new
rules,
the
population
of
people
who
could
be
nom
come
eligible,
wouldn't
be
hugely
different
numerically.
O
B
We're
gonna
have
the
refresh
problem.
If
I
do
it
that
way,
but
let's
see.
O
O
P
Hardly
speaking
and
you're
about
to
have
another
ted
you'll
have
chad
on
ted.
Now.
P
For
writing
the
draft.
I
disagree,
however,
that
this
is
appropriate
for
ad
sponsorship
in
part,
because
it's
doing
too
many
experiments
in
one
document,
it
talks
about
participation,
models
along
multiple
different
axes
and
tries
to
experiment
with
them
all
at
once,
and
I
think
the
result
of
that
is
going
to
need
some
considerable
forging
before
it
would
be
appropriate
for
39.33.
P
So
I
think
the
simpler
thing
to
do
here
is
to
go
ahead
and
have
the
working
group
discussion,
either
in
shmu
or
a
little
mini
working
group
and
forge
out
which
ones
of
these
we
actually
want
to
consider
and
I'll.
Just
take
two
quick
examples
from
the
draft
that
illustrate
the
point.
One
of
the
things
that
draft
says
right
now
is
that
it
will
continue
to
allow.
P
Oh
sorry,
it
will
permit
non-participation
by
anybody
who
was
in
an
isg
or
iab
sponsored
formal
role
anytime
in
the
last
five
years,
and
we
have
some
of
those
formal
roles
like
ayanna
experts
or
liaisons
from
the
ib
who
have
been
in
them
for
many
many
many
years
because
of
their
focused
expertise
in
a
specific
area,
but
who
have
not
attended
an
ietf
either
in
person
or
remotely
for
many
years
as
well.
P
So
I
think
it's
it's
important
for
us
to
have
discussions
about
what
itf
participation
models
actually
are
and
if
you
wanted
to
do
something
right
now,
you
could
do
a
much
simpler
thing
by
saying
for
any
meeting
where
there
was
no
in-person
meeting
registration
for
the
remote
meeting
counts
as
an
in-person
meeting
and
we'll
experiment
with
that.
Until
we
get
back
to
discovering
what
our
new
in-person
meeting
cadence
looks
like.
But
I
think
this
is
too
complicated
a
proposal
to
do
as
ad
sponsored.
P
O
Thanks-
okay,
just
to
react
to
that,
so
I
guess
I
don't
agree
that
this
proposal
is
too
complicated,
knowing
what
the
upshot
of
the
proposal
is
and
how
it
impacts
on
who
gets
randomly
selected
from
outcome
is
complicated,
but
I
don't
think
your
proposal
is
so
I
guess
I
would
disagree
just
understand
about
it
being
too
complicated
for
ad
sponsorship,
but
I
think
yeah.
Your
point
is
taking
that
any
set
of
new
eligibility
rules
will
have
hard
to
foresee
consequences,
which
I
think
is
a
good.
R
I
never
imagined
that
expert
reviewers
were
in.
I
I
star
expert
roles,
so
I
don't
think
we
intended
that.
Did
we
stephen?
I
don't
think
so.
I
think
we
meant
iab
iesg,
I
think
meant,
but
I
could
be
wrong
if
you
think
that
we
this
one's
too
complicated,
then
you
should
see
the
one
we
didn't
propose,
which
was
there
were
many
many
more
complicated
things.
I
thought
that
we
tried
to
narrow
it
down
to
one
or
two
things
at
a
time,
and
you
think
that
we
failed
at
that.
R
So
I
I
take
your
point
that
we
need
to
do
something
small.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
jump.
We
can
jump
into.
I
think
the
whole
point
of
this
exercise
and
schmooze
that
shmu
shouldn't
be
rough,
but
that
we
have
a
problem
starting
in
march
2021,
and
we
should
let
people
know
enough
in
advance,
so
they
know
what
it
is
that
they
need
to
do
before
that
point
to
become
eligible.
R
P
So
I
would
also
strongly
encourage
not
just
moving
this
discussion
into
the
shmoo
list,
while
shmu
needs
to
pay
attention
eventually,
I
think
that
it
would
be
a
distraction
from
the
topics
that
schmoon
really
should
be
focusing
on.
Initially,
I
would
be
happy
with
a
a
a
small
focused
working
group,
but
I
also
think
that
it
would
get
the
exposure
and
participation
that
it
needed
if
it
continued
discussion,
continued
to
happen
on
its
existing
list.
S
It
worked,
I
would
like
to
see
us
put
something
into
place
on
intermeasure,
even
if
it
perhaps
not
as
an
experiment
recognizing
that
the
need
for
this
is
not
just
once
a
year
for
the
normal
nom-com.
It
might
come
up
at
another
time
because
of
recall
committees,
and
so
I'm
concerned
that
the
temporary
fix
we
put
in
place
for
this
nom-com
doesn't
address
that
edge
case.
B
M
Let
me
take
the
pause,
ensure
that
everybody
can
hear
me
now.
Yes,
so
I
mean
I
think
it's
it
sounds
like
people
want
to
get
something
done
fast,
because
we
have
a
timeline
and-
and
it
already
has
its
own
list-
and
I
I
unders.
B
I'm
willing
to
do
a
hum
for
using
the
tool,
so
I'm
gonna
push
the
home
tool
just
to
get
people
if
you
object
to
it
being
an
ad-sponsored
document
using
the
current
eligibility
discuss
list
to
discuss
any
issues.
B
B
K
B
All
right,
so
we
it
we
had
a
few
people.
It
came
up
pianissimo,
so
we
had
a
few
people
who
do
object.
Is
there
anything
that,
beyond
what
ted
said
at
the
mic
that
people
want
to
jump
in,
because
you
have
a
different
view
of
why
we
shouldn't
do
that.
B
Before
all
right
I
mean
I
I'm
I'm
inclined
to
to
say
that
that
is
a
rough
opinion
of
objection
that
that
that
it's
not
a
allowed
objection.
So
if
you
wanted
to
go
forward
in
that
direction,
I
I
think
alyssa.
That's
that's,
probably
perfectly
reasonable.
I
don't
think
there's
been
shouting
of
objection.
B
Can
move
forward
yeah?
I
think
we'll
call
that
dispatched
will
for
the
you
know,
for
the
current
time
being,
if
there's
additional
discussion
on
the
content
of
the
document
eligibility
discuss
is
where
it's
being
discussed
and
alyssa
is
going
to
take
on
the
document
and
see
if
we
can
move
it
forward.
That
way.
A
R
Okay,
so
brian
fernando
and
I
came
together
on
from
different
points
of
views
to
talk
about
the
question
of
how
working
groups
adopt
documents
next
slide.
Please.
R
Probably
better
full
screen
you
can
hit
down,
but
anyway,
whatever
so
we'd
like
to
think
that
this
is
how
documents
go
through
and-
and
you
may
know
that
over
the
years,
I
guess
there's
been
a
lot
of
attention
to
the
right-hand
side
to
make
the
rfc
publication
center
work
faster.
R
Lots
of
discussion
yesterday,
plenary
to
making
the
iesg
part
go
faster,
but
we're
really
focused
on
the
parts
of
the
far
left
between
the
individual
draft
and
working
group
adoption,
and
we
kind
of
would
like
to
think
that.
That's
how
it
looks
next
slide.
R
Please,
what
we
actually
see
is
that
this
is
what
we
think
happens
is
that
individual
drafts
cycle
this
and
one
person
say.
Oh,
I
don't
want
to
bother
the
working
group
until
I
have
us
my
solutions
perfect
and
I
need
to
tell
that
person
is
well.
That
sounds
like
a
version
of
imposter
syndrome
to
me,
because
I
think
that
the
working
group
has
should
maybe
participate
in
making
it
perfect
and
actually
there's
a
really
terrible
situation.
Not
we
think,
which
is
the
next
slide.
Please.
R
Which
is
when
some
group
of
people
sometimes
worst
case,
an
external
sdo
goes
off,
thinks
a
whole
bunch
shows
up
and
says:
hey.
We
have
this
perfect
solution,
please
adopt
it
and
publish
it,
and
then
we
get
a
bunch
of
well
hang
on
here.
What's
going
on,
we've
adopted
it.
We
find
all
these
problems
and
then
there's
a
lot
of
resistance
to
actually
changing
it.
This
isn't
pathology.
R
R
The
problem
is,
is
that
working
groups
have
different
notions
as
to
what
it
means
to
adopt
a
document,
and
there
was
another
document
previously
written
that
says
what
does
it
mean,
and
this
document
says
it's
a
commitment
that
the
working
group
will
spend
time
and
effort
on
the
draft,
but
it
does
not
guarantee
that
draft
will
reach
working
group
consensus
or
be
published.
R
The
critical
thing,
in
my
mind,
is
always
if
the
document
is
adopted,
then
you
can
put
it
on
the
on
the
agenda
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
other
criteria
in
my
mind,
so
this
document
tries
to
clarify
things
for
things
at
this
point.
Working
group
chairs
have
the
prerogative
to
do
it
any
way
they
like
and
that's
fine,
but
I
think
that
part
of
what
we
want
them
to
do
is
be
a
little
more
clear.
What
what
will
their
prerogative
be
and
how
should
people
react
in
that
group?
R
So
they
know
ahead
of
time.
What
to
expect
next
slide,
please,
I
think
that's
almost
the
last
one
yeah
just
I
just
said
that
continue
on.
Please.
R
So
we
think
that
they
should
adopt
documents
as
soon
as
they
can
agree
in
the
problem
statement,
we
have
some
dispute
as
to
whether
or
not
they
should
adopt
documents
automatically
when
they're
the
result
of
design
teams,
but
that's
something
we
could
discuss
if
we
find
a
home
for
this
next
slide.
Please.
R
And
the
options
seem
to
be
80
sponsored
or
some
kind
of
mini
working
group
to
do
this
in.
B
All
right,
joel,
you're,
up
to
bat.
U
On
the
other
hand,
your
criteria-
I
completely
disagree
with
adoption-
has
nothing
to
do
with
whether
it
gets
agenda
time
in
all
of
the
working
groups.
I've
been
involved
in,
and
I've
been
involved
in
a
lot
of
different
working
groups,
as
have
you
a
working
group
time
on
agendas.
Is
there
is
interest
in
working
in
discussing
it
adoption
by
the
working
group
for
me-
and
this
has
been
my
co-chairs
and
other
people
I've
worked
with-
represents
the
working
group
agrees.
U
V
R
I
don't
think
we're
trying
to
suggest
this
strongly.
I
think
we're
trying
to
suggest
that
working
groups
need
to
be
clear
of
what
it
is.
They
expect
and
as
joel
said,
so
that
so
that
everyone
can
know
what
it
means
and
so
that
you
would
know
coming
forward
what
it
is
you
need
to
produce
to
get
it
to
adoption.
L
Hi
bob
hinden
yeah,
I
I
support.
I
think
we
need
a
general
set
of
rules
for
what
adoption
means.
I
think
I've
seen
a
lot
of
cases
where
adoption
has
turned
into
about
the
same
thing
as
work
group
last
call,
and
so
it's
gotten
moved
easy
or
yeah.
I
think
it
shouldn't
be
that
hard
to
adopt,
but
I'm
I'm
also
agreeing
with
joel
a
bit.
Is
that
it
it?
L
L
There
was
a
lot
of
disagreement
about
the
proposed
solution,
so
we
instructed
the
author
to
publish
a
working
group
document
that
took
all
the
solutions
out
and
you
know
left
them
as
tbd,
and
then
we
want
to
have
them
discuss
one
by
one
on
the
mailing
list
to
see
what
we.
L
Agree
with
so
yeah,
so
I
think
I
think
something
like
this
should
be
done.
I'm
not
exactly
sure
where
to
do
it
either.
L
This
is
the
the
flash
free
numbering
document.
A
I
Thanks,
I
can
talk
really
fast,
I'm
concerned
about
introducing
rules
for
this
sort
of
thing.
I
think
that
we
do
not
want
to
close
down
the
flexibility
in
how
working
groups
are
run
for
different
circumstances,
and
maybe
the
right
approach
is
to
look
at
this
in
the
context
of
rfc
7221,
which
tries
to
describe
the
process
around
this
and
say
what
is
missing
there
and
maybe
tighten
that
document
up
a
little.
I
It's
so
small
that
I
I
would
say
it's
so
small
that
just
do
it.
W
I
would
like
to
re-emphasize
joel's
comment
that
for
adoption,
it
is
essential
that
the
draft
brought
in
is
considered
good
in
some
way.
W
I
think
I
have
seen
too
many
adoptions
where
people
were
shy
to
do
the
the
discussion,
why
it
is
a
bad
idea
or
why
it
is
well
okay,
and
that
that
may
mean
that
actually,
the
discussion
and
the
real
judgment
only
happened
as
a
big
as
a
big
discussion
at
working
work
at
last
call,
which
obviously
is
much
more
unreasonable
than
having
a
discussion
and
an
evaluation
at
the
adoption.
W
I
do
not
think
that
measures
for
ensuring
this
need
to
need
to
be
a
fixed
rule
over
all
the
working
groups,
but
giving
the
working
group
chairs
some
language
that
they
can
that
they
can
actually
adopt
for
the
working
group.
If
this
is
a
pro,
this
problem
shows
up
certainly
certainly
would
be
helpful
thanks.
B
And
so
I
mentioned
in
the
jabra
chat
francesca
and
I
have
been
chatting
in
a
separate
window.
It
sounds
to
me
well,
it
sounds
to
me
like
we
should
have
asked
for
two
hours
instead
of
one,
but
it
sounds
to
me
like.
We
need
an
interim
to
sort
some
of
this
for
gen
dispatch
to
find
a
reasonable
way
to
get
these
dispatched.
Alyssa.
Are
you
okay
with
that
idea,
and
should
we
go
ahead
and
just
figure
out
the
soonest
possible
time
to
do
that.
B
I
I
because
I
think,
just
watching
the
jabber
room,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
that
needs
to
be
sorted
to
get
these
things
dispatched
appropriately,
because
I
don't
have
a
good
sense
on
this
document.
Whether
we've
got
consensus
on
where
to
dispatch
it
now.
M
B
Right
so
discussion
of
dispatching
this
will
continue
on
gen
dispatch,
and
I
encourage
everyone
here
to
please
join.
It's
not
high
volume
and
discussion
of
particular
of
eligibility
will
happen
on
eligibility
to
discuss,
and
if
you
want
to
talk
about
content
of
that
document,
and
I
think
francesca
and
I
will
get
together
and
send
out
a
message
to
gen
dispatch,
to
try
and
arrange
for
an
interim
real
soon.