[rfc-i] RFC Format BoF
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Mar 14 13:47:32 PDT 2012
On 3/14/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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
>>> 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. :)
I sincerely hope so!
More information about the rfc-interest