Subject: [dispatch] Benoit Claise's No Record on charter-ietf-dispatch-02-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 01:59:36 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dispatch-02-00: No Record

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dispatch/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(*)  Disclaimer: I've not been following RAI/ART work in the IETF and I
don't know whether the DISPATCH process has been efficient or not. So
I'll mainly make observations.

I understand Harald's point,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4,
When I read the charter, it's like an extra procedure, specific to ART.
For example, if I want a BoF, I must first go to DISPATCH to get their
approval? Same thing for AD-sponsored document?

    The Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for
new
    work in the ART area and identify, or help create, an appropriate
venue
    for the work.

Btw, no change here: this sentence is basically unchanged compared to the
previous charter.

In the past, I was told that DISPATCH was similar to the OPSAWG WG.
Let me observe it's not. "The DISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work",
while OPSAWG might.
>From the OPSAWG charter:

    The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
    the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
    management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
    and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG
    will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF.

Obviously, redirecting work to existing WGs is also an OPSAWG task.
And when the work is substantial, a new WG can even be created. Ex: EMAN 
in the past

I prefer the OPSAWG approach (*).

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:37:31 -0600

A few comments below [MB].

Mary.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dispatch/
[MB] You can see the history of all the work we have dispatched since the
WG was chartered:
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/trac/wiki/WikiStart
I can understand that folks that weren't involved in RAI prior to the
DISPATCH model might not understand the impact it has had on the area, but
previously we had the SIPPING WG that handled all the work that didn't fit
within existing WGs and it was chaotic and highly inefficient. [/MB]
[/MB]

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4,
[MB] You might want to read Alissa's response to that email as those
comments really aren't directly related to the process but rather the
protocols that were developed in the TSV and RAI area.  DISPATCH wasn't
intended to fix the protocols but rather to define a process and procedures
for changing the protocols and defining new protocols.
[/MB]

> approval? Same thing for AD-sponsored document?
[MB] No, it is not required that you go through DISPATCH for a Bof.  If
it's something for which it's clear that there would be wider interest than
the regular ART community, the regular Bof process is followed.  There's a
number of examples of that including RTCWEB and NETVC.  For AD sponsored,
yes, it goes through DISPATCH.
[/MB]

> Let me observe it's not. "The DISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work",
[MB] I'm not sure who made that observation, but from what you've posted
below since the objective of DISPATCH was to not have any deliverables, I
don't see the similarity except at the highest level. [/MB]

> I prefer the OPSAWG approach (*).
[MB] In one sense the RAI area had a WG similar to OPSAWG and that was the
SIPPING WG and it was a disaster - there was way too much coming into the
WG and work was very slow to complete. The model of chartering what we
sometimes call mini-WGs has proven to be significantly superior.  And, I
will note that I chaired SIPPING and have chaired DISPATCH since it was
chartered, so it wasn't how we managed the SIPPING WG, it was the fact that
there was just too much disparate work that was of interest to subsets of
individuals that made it quite chaotic. We also had a huge issue with WG
shopping in the RAI area prior to DISPATCH WG chartering.  We had one
document that was discussed in 3 separate WGs at a single meeting. [/MB]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 08:49:07 -0500

Adding briefly to what Mary said:

> [MB] No, it is not required that you go through DISPATCH for a Bof.  If it's
> something for which it's clear that there would be wider interest than the
> regular ART community, the regular Bof process is followed.

And I don't see anything in the charter text that implies that BoF
requests must go through DISPATCH.  DISPATCH is there to help if it's
needed/wanted.

> SIPPING WG and it was a disaster - there was way too much coming into the WG
> and work was very slow to complete. The model of chartering what we

APPSAWG has also been similar to OPSAWG, and it worked well for some
documents... and failed badly for some others.  It has turned out that
having no clear structure for the work -- remember that there are a
lot of disparate topics handled by the former APP and RAI areas, and
now ART -- has meant that such a working group can have a lot of
trouble getting meaningful review for arbitrary protocol documents,
which often have a few proponents and lack broad interest.

Because of that, we think it's better to let DISPATCH form a home for
the work, and not try to manage the work directly.

Barry