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

["StJohns, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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=
> [e-mail]> 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 -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>