--On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 19:07 -0800 Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 5/1/12 5:55 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
What would be good patterns for those roles?
I don't know what John has in mind but it strikes me that every
so often we get a wave of new participants (as new topics
and/or
work areas are introduced) and it seems to me that it would be
valuable if people who've been through the process a time or
three could help mentor people who are new to the IETF but have
drafts that have been adopted. Presumably they can help with
process and culture issues, as well.
That is pretty much what I had in mind ... mostly one on one. I
also think that there is a similar role for/with, e.g.,
newly-minted WG Chairs and document editors with the "advisor"
concentrating at least as much on helping on teaching/ showing
someone the ropes as on providing technical advice or oversight
to the WG itself.
This has some dangers, or at least issues, that I think we need
to keep in mind.
First, Paul Hoffman is exactly right. To elaborate on the way I
understood his comment, the IETF community has a tendency to
turn good informal ideas into detailed structures and
requirements. For example, we have evolved "BOF" from
"AD-approved informal discussion of potential work items" into a
highly-structured near-requirement for WG formation with
specific roles, combined IESG and IAB reviews, guidelines for
success in RFCs, and so on. We almost certainly do not need to
have WGs with two Co-chairs, a Secretary, a few Editors, a
Responsible AD, a Technical Advisor, and designated Watchers/
Mentors for each person in the first three of those categories.
Too much formalism, too top-heavy, and possibly another barrier
to WG creation (of which, IMO, we already have too many).
I'd rather see this kept a little more informal or maybe a lot
more informal. An AD should definitely be able to move someone
into a Chair or Co-chair position with designated support, but
it is at least as important that people who have been around for
a while be able to spot potential new talent and offer advice
and coaching in an informal environment.
I do have two major concerns with the way in which the
discussion has evolved. First, vocabulary affects how we think
or at least how others assume we think. "Greybeard" is a nasty
example of that because, no matter how much experience women
have in the IETF, few of them will sport beards or any color
and, at the risk of a silly example, expecting them to don such
garb on a regular basis is unreasonable. So, unless we want to
send the message that all of the senior members of the community
are necessarily male (and inclined to grow beards), we need to
find another term.
At the same time, while I'm all in favor of members of
particular communities drawing together to share experiences and
ways of coping with "the system", moves toward talking about the
IETF context in terms of "gender diversity" (or any other type
of "diversity") strike me as risky for the community. If the
IETF were doing more user interface work, there would be a
really strong argument for making sure the IETF, or at least the
relevant WGs, were diverse enough to reflect the broader
community. But I don't think that anyone has made a convincing
case that there is anything inherently "male" (or "northern", or
"white", or...) about TCP, IP, or much of anything else in the
IETF's sub-UI work. Until and unless that case is made, I think
we need to be absolutely sure that capable and promising women
have at least as much opportunity to make useful contributions
in the IETF --including taking on leadership roles-- as capable
and promising men. But, even a step or two in the direction of
promoting or preferring less-able women in order to make IETF
bodies more diverse would be likely to result in shooting
ourselves in our collective feet.
Let me also make a suggestion that I hope is constructive: the
newcomers meet-and-greet may be really helpful in giving the new
people a chance to meet some of those they should be working
with. It would work better if a larger fraction of the
leadership sought out newcomers to talk with rather than
treating it as a pre-welcome-reception opportunity to talk with
each other, but I don't know how it fix that. However those
newcomer sessions don't --I suggest can't-- work for forming
mentoring relationships for two reasons. First, the people who
should be most available for mentoring are those with
significant IETF experience who do not have present WG Chair,
IESG, or IAB responsibilities. But those people are excluded
from the newcomers meet and greet sessions. Second, it is just
too early, especially since we, as a community, have little
control over who will be back the second and third time and the
second and third year. So I suggest we think about how to put
together 2nd-comer or 3rd-comer opportunities with potential
(and committed) mentors available and other attendance limited
to self-selected relatively new people (but normally not
first-timers) who are interested in that kind of experience and
support.
john