Subject: [dispatch] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-dispatch-02-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:55:38 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dispatch-02-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dispatch/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given this,

"Options for handling new work include:

"- By agreement with ART ADs, processing simple documents."

and this: 

"The DISPATCH WG will not do any
protocol work. Specifically, DISPATCH will always opt to find a location
for technical work; the only work that DISPATCH is not required to
delegate (or defer, or reject) is administrative work such as IANA
actions."

If these are describing the same thing, I'd suggest replacing "simple"
with "administrative", which I'm reading as more restrictive. Having
"simple" being undefined in this context seems vulnerable to mischief
("of course, my document is simple, so it's within charter, right?").

If they aren't describing the same thing, I'd suggest defining "simple".

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:50:58 -0600

On 1 Feb 2016, at 23:55, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> If these are describing the same thing,

I believe they are describing the same thing. (Although "simple" may be 
somewhat tainted by SIMPLE. :-)  )

> I'd suggest replacing "simple"

Such mischief would require AD agreement by the current wording :-) But, 
how about "simple administrative documents"?

> If they aren't describing the same thing, I'd suggest defining 

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:02:15 -0500

> Such mischief would require AD agreement by the current wording :-) But, how
> about "simple administrative documents"?

Yes, I prefer keeping "simple" and adding "administrative".  Not *all*
administrative documents will qualify.

I also prefer, with this change, to leave "simple" vague.  See Potter Stewart.

Barry

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 00:36:49 -0600

> I also prefer, with this change, to leave "simple" vague.  See Potter

This all works for me, and thank you.

Spencer

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 08:57:20 -0600

> I also prefer, with this change, to leave "simple" vague.  See Potter 

Done.

Thanks!

Ben.