[rfc-i] RFC Format BoF

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Mar 14 13:45:38 PDT 2012


On 3/14/12 2:43 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 3/14/12 4:16 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/2012 1:08 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> Hi all -
>>>
>>> It's almost recursive: this is a message about the format of the RFC
>>> Format BoF.   As mentioned in an earlier post, I want the BoF to be
>>> informal, with the audience providing the information.  I do not want it
>>> to be so informal that we devolve in to food fights and dart gun wars
>>> (we can save that for another time).  So, in order to find a balance and
>>> to effectively use our hour, we will be structuring the BoF as a series
>>> of lightning talks with a general introduction.
>>>
>>> Individuals who wish to present their concerns and suggestions regarding
>>> images and internationalization
>>
>> Heather,
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure what will be accomplished by lightening talks,
>> other than possible entertainment.  In conferences, such talks are
>> good for exposing people to an idea and possibly for generating some
>> interest in the idea.  The problem, here, is that we are supposed to
>> move towards making choices.
>>
>> We have two venues for meeting.  One is email and the other is
>> face-to-face. Email is good for presenting information and quite poor
>> for negotiation.  F2F can be quite good for presentations, of course,
>> but it's also good for negotiation.
>>
>> We ought to find a way for the f2f to be used for its unique benefit.
>>
>> Imagine an alternative format:
>>
>> 1. People with positions to express express them via email prior to xxx.
>>
>> 2. The meeting is divided into discussions about positions for
>> specific topics.
>>
>>
>> Just a thought...
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I understand, and I agree that negotiation does need to happen.  I'm
> just not ready for it to happen right now, while I'm still learning what
> it all means.  Based on the morass of history and no consensus, a BoF
> format that will allow some summary of positions and opinions in a
> controlled fashion (and I argue that control on an open mailing list is
> not possible) will be valuable to me. 

Fair enough. Perhaps we'll be ready for a deeper exploration or
negotiation in Vancouver. :)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list