Re: [113attendees] HotRFC at IETF-113 -- 2nd call for participation

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I'd like for the IESG to think a bit about how the IETF can use HotRFC
    > more effectively. Most of the work behind HotRFC has been done by
    > people who weren't on the IESG, so I'm talking about making sure that
    > we don't forget to think about when to schedule it, who should be
    > hosting it, and how to publicize it - given that, the rest of HotRFC is
    > easy.

This was my first HotRFC.  I have mostly chosen to take that time as away/me-time.
But, it worked out for me, and I joined in person.

I think that the best part of HotRFC is that the time is limited, and that no
questions are permitted.  This avoids any kind of debate, and really forces
presenters to focus on their key message.

The lack of debate likely also lowers the barrier: if you know you can't get
attacked in the mic line, it may be less intimidating.

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.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-