DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
Note: RFC 5111 was a time-limited experiment.
(Spencer Dawkins) Yes
(Alia Atlas) No Objection
Deborah Brungard No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
This document is related to the DISPATCH charter, recently approved by the IESG. For example, my feedback, which lead to the changes at https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-dispatch%2Fwithmilestones-02-01.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-dispatch%2Fwithmilestones-03.txt, is (I believe, different wording is used) covered under the following text. Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters, nor does it prevent new-work proposals from going directly to BoF meetings when appropriate. For borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a dispatch-style group or elsewhere is made by the responsible Area Directors and chairs. Even if the write-up doesn't mention the link with the DISPATCH charter, I trust the authors (current and past IESG members) have double-checked everything.
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection
I absolutely fine with this doc and understand that an update of RFC 5727 is needed (especially to update/decouple the SIP change process), but I have a question out of curiosity: Why does ART need dispatch (and define the process in an BCP) while other areas have an area meeting that more or less performs the same task...? I'm probably missing some history on this, but would be curious to learn more!
(Terry Manderson) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection
I want to make sure that this doesn't prohibit direct chartering of WGs without BOFs and without going through DISPATCH. I intend to assume that is the case for some work I am planning.