--On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:57 +0100 Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> I tried the HotRFC last time, via gather.town, with the
> recorded videos and questions on the floor. It's entirely a
> different thing, and I think that actually, it is usefully
> complementary.
> I will note that *DISPATCH is also become more of a thing.
>
> While previously we often had a 1st non-WG forming BOF
> followed by ML and charter discussions, we now have:
> HotRFC -> *DISPATCH -> WG-forming BOF
> That's okay with me, but it goes to the RFC2026 is wrong
> debate, and we should probably tell people about this more
> explicitely. That doesn't mean we have to freeze this
> process: but we do need to tell people it's happening.
I actually don't think it interacts much with 2026 although I do
wonder whether how much introducing additional steps into the
process --whether they involve
a non-WG-forming BOF -> ML discussion -> charter
proposal -> a WG-forming BOF -> more discussion and
charter revision -> chartering
or
discussion, *DISPATCH, -> WG-forming BOF -> charter
discussion -> chartering
(with the initial discussion in the second case taking many
forms) -- is contributing to general delays and some people's
sense that it is impossible to get real work done in the IETF in
any efficient and timely way.
While, as work-proposing mechanisms, the tone is certainly
different (especially along the fear of being attacked dimension
you mention), I'm not sure whether HotRFC is significantly
different from the BarBOFs of yesteryear.
john
