+1 to this and Mark’s previous one about a combined dispatch for ART/SEC/WIT being helpful.
One proviso is that the charter for GENAREA needs to be very clear about what small things it can take on, and what things really need wider community consensus first. And I don’t really mean on the size of the work, but the potential impact of the work on
the community or the standards process.
Regards,
Rob
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 27 November 2024 at 04:32
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, alldispatch@xxxxxxxx <alldispatch@xxxxxxxx>, 121attendees@xxxxxxxx <121attendees@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Alldispatch] Re: [121attendees] Results of the ALLDISPATCH Experiment (Was: Results and report of the IETF 121 post-meeting survey)
GENDISPATCH never had a conflict-free slot before, and it was fine. I'd actually suggest moving away from the DISPATCH model for process/administrative things, and just have a standing
GENAREA WG that can take on small things and request the AD to create WGs for bigger things.
> On 27 Nov 2024, at 3:28 PM, Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
>>
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
--
Alldispatch mailing list -- alldispatch@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to alldispatch-leave@xxxxxxxx
|
