Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 11 October 2019 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58502120096; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IWggXHfy6fJQ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ABF4120114; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.48.10.6] (ip-108-232-239-173.texas.us.northamericancoax.com [173.239.232.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x9BJD017065929 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:13:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1570821182; bh=bVv4p/yGrWmp9GAGnjM/7KQIYQG8MYCGpeX2OMhmMe8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=tjzJDNsSq5NvA8yHTsNcaZJMqmM2ommhVHHIMnLDYfh6ZXH6RP4B7jooD1EyOP0K5 6t4yJ0vSs6P/wCz0/E9znhsSG24muJccuZGdQPcvyUCKEWZ5MsOoSJC2NZIH4EHOIR M0tabH0QhsSy7WDrVSgoAHdNF1bhDA+b2GFXjl80=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host ip-108-232-239-173.texas.us.northamericancoax.com [173.239.232.108] claimed to be [10.48.10.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <18383AE8-9AF2-4C93-8598-EF33F7E49A4B@cooperw.in>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:12:59 -0500
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, gendispatch@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B306CEB-3DC3-4315-ADF3-56A8FCE4225E@nostrum.com>
References: <156953786511.31837.12069537821662045851.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8A15D8AF-6B1A-42A0-85CE-DF861E73C1C2@nostrum.com> <CALaySJL0-=Jn0Wk8GR+xrGcZ6Vyv4QO+p=LgkKt5srdVu+Zh_g@mail.gmail.com> <6CC7893B-7A6C-4A6A-9AB4-9C62A4E1777A@nostrum.com> <6F6819D9-E681-4247-8C19-F87709ADB1CA@mnot.net> <2DE4AAEA-13A0-4D49-AE3E-8ACCD81BF49E@nostrum.com> <2E4933D9-ECD0-436A-9ADA-5EF6C6470C01@nostrum.com> <18383AE8-9AF2-4C93-8598-EF33F7E49A4B@cooperw.in>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/wba8dGXyjn3Xptk6GaQMVYIzQOk>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 19:13:28 -0000


> On Oct 11, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Here’s an attempt to distill my concern a little better:
>> 
>> The “dispatch process” can reasonably be thought of as a triage process. Triage makes sense when you don’t have the time and resources to address every problem and have to pick and choose where you can have the most impact. If you do have time and resources to address everything, then triage is just a process bump. 
>> 
>> Do we believe that GEN area proposals will routinely exceed our capacity to discuss them? If so, do we think that will continue to be true for the foreseeable future? (I assume this is intended to be a long-lived wg).
> 
> I guess I see the question differently. If there are people in the community who are willing to manage discussions about process proposals while they’re in formation (i.e., people willing to chair this WG), that seems like a better arrangement than the current one both from the perspective of being more community-led and from the perspective of the other time commitments that the IESG has. If the WG isn’t busy or meeting all the time, that’s fine — it will still be nice to have it there for times when process proposals do come up and inspire discussion.

I think I’ve been unclear in my concern. I have no objection to having a working group for discussion of proposals to improve processes. I think that’s a good idea. My question is about whether such working group should be limited to the dispatch process.

Certainly there may be case where there it is appropriate dispatch work to some other venue, spin up a new wg for a proposal, etc. But I wonder why we need to decide in advance that work on a proposal will cannot be completed by this group. Especially when it seems likely that the people working on a proposal will often be the same whether the work happens in gendispatch or somewhere else.

Thanks!

Ben.
>