I should say that I'm still acting as the Aaron Interpreter, but only because he's now arrived at his new home in LA, and is using a cell phone until his Internet service is installed. He can chime in anytime, and start an email with "what Spencer MEANT to say, was ..."
But, moving on ...
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 2:25 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I actually don't think it interacts much with 2026 although I do wonder
It's not so much that it interacts with 2026,etc. so much as that those
documents are wrong.
> 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.
I would say that it's contributing to a sense that people don't know what the
flavour of the day is.
> 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.
Actual BarBOFs, in bars with napkins and beer (and no remote things to get in
the way), would be before HotRFC :-)
Aaron has taken suggestions from other people, but the format we used for HotRFC this week was almost unchanged from what Aaron proposed to the IESG before IETF 102.
I said in the chair slides that HotRFC presentations are Requests For Conversations, and people can have many reasons to want to talk for four minutes.
If people are trying to figure out where a HotRFC talk fits into our documented process and our published guidance about "bringing new work into the IETF", that's probably not going to be the same place for every person and every proposal.
Would it be good to write that down, so that people could understand that clearly? Probably ... 🙂
Best,
Spencer
