Re: [121attendees] Re: [Alldispatch] Results of the ALLDISPATCH Experiment (Was: Results and report of the IETF 121 post-meeting survey)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Given that doing a dispatch during a meeting means that no progress will be made on a given topic until the next meeting…. Sort of….    Would it make any sense to move the dispatch sessions to interim virtual sessions at least a month before a given meeting date?  

Mike

On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 20:22 Lixia Zhang <lixia@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
after going through all the exchanges on the topic, I'd like to second the Mark's following 2 suggestions,
- one technical dispatch covering all areas
- keep it separate from progress/operation discussions.

my 2 cents, Lixia


On Nov 26, 2024, at 2:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

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. 

Just my .02.

_______________________________________________
121attendees mailing list -- 121attendees@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 121attendees-leave@xxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux