Hi! # Summary At IETF 119, 120 and 121, the IESG ran an experiment to combine the various dispatch functions into a single meeting. The motivation for this experiment and the associated evaluation criteria were outlined in [1]. Having run the experimental meeting three times and collected feedback from the chairs and community, IESG concludes there is no consensus to permanently adopt the ALLDISPATCH approach. This concludes the ALLDISPATCH experiment. The IESG thanks the combined chair team of all of the dispatch groups (Jim Fenton, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Shuping Peng, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef, and Martin Vigoureux) who helped execute the experiment. At IETF 122, there will be no ALLDISPATCH meeting. The GENDISPATCH, DISPATCH, and SECDISPATCH WGs are free to convene as they did prior to the experiment. # Evaluation Details The launch of the ALLDISPATCH experiment outlined four evaluation criteria [1]. ## (1) Did the chairs have undue difficulty building an agenda and/or trading off interest in various areas? The chairs reported that late decisions on whether ALLDISPATCH would meet complicated the creation of an agenda. Likewise, there was additional effort in coordinating among the large team of chairs. The chairs did not report challenges in trading off the interests of various areas. ## (2) Was it easier or harder to minimize the number of conflicts in the schedule relative to prior meetings? The input to the IESG on this topic was not conclusive. A significant challenge was that the different iterations of the experiment changed the permitted scheduling conflicts against ALLDISPATCH which made simple side-by-side comparison more difficult. ## (3) What is the response to post-meeting survey questions about conflicts and the ALLDISPATCH session itself? The IESG assesses that based on the survey results [2] and mailing list response [3], there is no consensus on an IETF-wide dispatch approach. The post-meeting survey suggests a rough split somewhat favoring the ALLDISPATCH (see Question #69 of [2]). The mailing list feedback favors some other approach that isn’t ALLDISPATCH, but there isn’t consensus around a single approach. The most common alternatives were a technical dispatch meeting that either included all areas but GEN or was ART/WIT/SEC only. Based on the time pressure to decide on the approach for IETF 122, there was insufficient time to iterate on the dissenting opinions or the alternatives that could find consensus. The IESG heavily weighed this particular evaluation criteria in its decision. ## (4) Did the work presented receive feedback of quality equal to or better than might have been received at an area-specific dispatch meeting? The IESG received some feedback on this topic from the free-form text input of question # 68 from the survey results [2] and via the mailing list [3]. From this input the IESG was not able to definitively answer this evaluation question. Regards, Roman (as IETF Chair, for the IESG) [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/KBuTBDTmbZ_gLUqs-sLGRqbzwmE/ [2] https://ietf.co1.qualtrics.com/results/public/aWV0Zi1VUl8zT3laRG9JQWxidUkxZ0otNjc0M2NkNjc3NGI0MzEwMDA4OGUyMDMw#/pages/Page_347e0ec3-ea66-4185-8521-9ca4f735222c [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alldispatch/ykTs4-NligMmYUfrK3ut_Nkfqdk/
