Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First, that would require two slots that didn't conflict with any other
> working group.
I share this concern.
> 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 think that if anything, GENDISPATCH issues should have widest review.
Some people think that it's a very specialized niche that cares, and I think
this is a pathology that we should stamp out.
> 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.
Also agree.
> 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.)
Yes.
The most valuable thing is for people to arrive at alldispatch with a
pre-formed opinion (having read the drafts), and for 70% of the time to be
arguments at the MIC and/or clarifications. I was less able to do that this
time, but I have found this to be productive.
I would not object to alldispatch having an agenda deadline more than two
weeks ahead of the plenary week. Even 8 or 10 weeks ahead. (No requirement
for slides that early)
If keeping alldispatch conflict-free means nuking the plenary, I'm okay with
that. I think we need to return to more IAB Tech talks at the plenary, and
these talks should be about recently published (groups) of RFCs.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
