Subject: [dispatch] Cutoff for 110?

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:55:09 +1100

I'm looking at the wiki and its very much out of date.  Based on the one example of the dates in the Wiki, the dates might have passed already, but I haven't seen any notices to the list.  Where are we at?

(Answer to the obvious question: I'm working on something with others, but it's not quite ready yet.)

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:17:16 -0600

That's because no one has updated the wiki since I was removed as a
co-chair.  Personally, I found it extremely helpful to have the dates there
and to keep up with how work items were dispatched since names of
activities change.  But, that's for the new chairs to decide if they want
to spend the time on it (I did it as part of pre- and post- meeting
activities).

As far as IETF-110 dates, I had expected to find them at least in the
IETF-109 chair slides, but they're not there either.

So, I guess there are no deadlines other than the draft deadline this time
:)

Regards,
Mary.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:55 PM Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm looking at the wiki and its very much out of date.  Based on the one
> example of the dates in the Wiki, the dates might have passed already, but
> I haven't seen any notices to the list.  Where are we at?
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

---

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:48:22 -0500

Hi,

All the usual deadlines for IETF 110 are here in the Datatracker:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*

*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:21:41 +1100

I'd interpret the current situation being 'no deadlines' as well.

If so, that's a good outcome; I always found the seeming rigidity* of the DISPATCH process distinctly unwelcoming, especially in a group that's very likely to be someone's first experience of the IETF.

Regardless of whether there are deadlines or not, I think DISPATCH has a duty to clearly document and publicise its processes, expectations and norms. Expecting them to find RFC7957 is *not* adequate.

Cheers,

* I know that there was supposed to be flexibility in the dates, etc., but that was less than clear unless you were an 'insider.'

> On 19 Jan 2021, at 8:17 am, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> That's because no one has updated the wiki since I was removed as a co-chair.  Personally, I found it extremely helpful to have the dates there and to keep up with how work items were dispatched since names of activities change.  But, that's for the new chairs to decide if they want to spend the time on it (I did it as part of pre- and post- meeting activities).
> 
> As far as IETF-110 dates, I had expected to find them at least in the IETF-109 chair slides, but they're not there either. 
> 
> So, I guess there are no deadlines other than the draft deadline this time :)
> 
> Regards,
> Mary. 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:05:20 -0500

We'll update the wiki. point taken.

But yes, we're hoping to be more flexible with presentations and responsive
to the mailing list  in  particular. So Martin, it might not be a  bad idea
to send a FYI with even a half-baked idea to the list. But its certainly
not too late. If things are too busy we can do first come first served as
necessary, but we don't seem to have that problem at the moment.

-P

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:21 PM Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If so, that's a good outcome; I always found the seeming rigidity* of the
> DISPATCH process distinctly unwelcoming, especially in a group that's very
> likely to be someone's first experience of the IETF.
>
> Regardless of whether there are deadlines or not, I think DISPATCH has a
> duty to clearly document and publicise its processes, expectations and
> norms. Expecting them to find RFC7957 is *not* adequate.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> * I know that there was supposed to be flexibility in the dates, etc., but
> that was less than clear unless you were an 'insider.'
>
>
>