On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
<tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft
charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is
already agreed.
If there is something to be bashed for those 40 minutes, I'd
expect a link to at least a skeleton first draft. I note that
draft charter does have a link from the meeting materials page,
just not from the agenda. But, modulo the comment below, that
is a matter of taste to be working out between you, Ralph, and
the IESG.
The draft charter was placed where they usually are, on the BoF wiki. But I
added a link to a specific draft charter file when I updated the agenda, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/87/agenda/dnssdext/.
The other "problem" for mdnsext is that the second BoF has been given a
different name, for various reasons, but that does make it a bit harder to
locate the mail list and draft.
True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked in the
materials page, which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers
as access to slides is rather important.
As far as I know, the only "advertisement" is the link from the
"Agendas and Meeting Materials" section of the main meeting page
and the similar links from the Meetings entry on the IETF home
page. Now I'd personally like to see the "New Attendees"
category on the main meeting page changed to "New Attendees and
Participantes" and then including a link to a page that would
give hints about where these things are and how to navigate
around them. But that fairly clearly won't happen before Sunday
and YMMD.
Well, I would certainly agree that the meeting materials page/area needs to be
well advertised, if it isn't already, but I don't know what additional
information newcomers are pointed at, not being one.
And also on the BoF wiki, which you should know about.
Yep. I know about it and where to find it. But, as I explained
in my note to Brian, I'm a lot more concerned about newcomers
and remote participants without years or experience than I am
about what I can find if I remember all of the reasonable places
where I might look.
While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be better to
surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a couple of weeks and ask
them about their experience, whether they were aware of certain things, and
what could be done better.
Tim