That (two dispatch, one for technical work, and one for process work)
would seem to make some sense. Except that it appears to have two major
problems.
First, that would require two slots that didn't conflict with any other
working group.
Second, the loading for GenDispatch has seemed quite uneven, meaning
that some of the time we would need a session, but nowhere near a full
slot. Which seems a waste.
I want to second Pete's point that get folks to pay attention across
areas is important to the IETF functioning well. I think that
encouraging folks to at least be aware of the process activities is also
helpful to the health of the organization.
I do think it wouldn't hurt to remind chairs, etc. that most stuff
doesn't need to be dispatched. It can be sent directly to the proper
working group, or sent to a BoF. Dispatching is for things where the
path is not clear. (Unfortunately, a lack of clarity in how to handle
them seems to be the only common property of process work.)
Yours,
Joel
On 11/26/2024 10:44 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
Personally - I think that combining DISPATCH (what used to be Applications I mean ART I mean WIT) and SECDISPATCH makes sense, because there's a lot of overlap.
I agree with this, maybe it doesn't go far enough.
GETDISPATCH, however, is a somewhat different beast. Discussions about how to change our process and similar things need more iteration, and are more > appropriate (IMO) in something like a GENAREA WG. Lumping them in with technical proposals leads to a lack of consideration in discussion.
Yes, this is the key thing. GENDISPATCH is not like the others. And perhaps merging *all other dispatch* together is a worthwhile experiment, leaving GENDISPATCH off on its own.
