DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process
RFC 7957

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2016-05-05)
No email
send info
Note: RFC 5111 was a time-limited experiment.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-04-15)
No email
send info
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.

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-02)
No email
send info
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.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-04-26)
No email
send info
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!

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()
No email
send info

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()
No email
send info