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

["Black, David" <David.Black=40dell.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

+1

 

I also like the idea of setting a weeks-earlier pre-meeting deadline for drafts that need dispatching, *provided that* the additional time is used to obtain initial concept reviews and next step suggestions (e.g., take to xyz WG, hold a BoF, AD should sponsor) from the relevant area review teams.  That ought to ensure cross-area input and is likely to help the ADs make some of the obvious (in 20/20 hindsight) calls on what to do next in advance of the meeting week.

 

Thanks, --David

 

From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 8:19 PM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; alldispatch@xxxxxxxx; 121attendees@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [121attendees] Re: [Alldispatch] Results of the ALLDISPATCH Experiment (Was: Results and report of the IETF 121 post-meeting survey)

 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]

 

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.