Hi Michael,
To add to what Paul said, and give some more context – the Alldispatch chairs have been working really hard to have an early Alldispatch agenda, with a strict timeline
and repeated early call for topics and deadlines. That was one of the comments coming up over and over from the V1 of the experiment at IETF 119: the meeting time is valuable, let’s make sure it is well used and planned well in advance. When the IESG was doing
the de-conflicting, all the topics in the agenda were GEN, so what Paul said, it made sense to allow for other sessions that really needed deconflicting to run in parallel (given the amount of conflicts we have to handle). Now a couple of requests have come
in (after deadline) which are not GEN. It is unfortunate, but we didn’t have this data when looking at deconflicting. The amount of conflicts we get and what can we do about it is something else we should talk about…
Francesca
From:
Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 4 July 2024 at 13:37
To: alldispatch@xxxxxxxx <alldispatch@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Alldispatch] Re: alldispatch conflicts
On Jul 3, 2024, at 18:57, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I see in the final agenda that alldispatch is no longer in total plenary
> mode. It has conflicts with: satp, schc, gaia (RG), idr!, and openpgp.
>
> I think this is a mistake, I thought we were going to repeat the plenary mode
> for it again.
The reason was because all the submitted drafts for alldispatch happened to be gen area. So in a way this is now the equivalent to gendispatch. To deconflict some agenda issues, the option was raised for a slot against alldispatch and some preferred that over
other available alternatives.
Paul
--
Alldispatch mailing list -- alldispatch@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to alldispatch-leave@xxxxxxxx
|
