Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > > "newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
> > > observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
> > > interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
...
> > > The first quote might discourage newcomers from participating.  I
> > > suggest discussing about the two quotes during the orientation as
> > > they could be misunderstood.
...
> But the first one is just plain wrong. Is this from RFC 3184? Many of
> the first time IETFers are here for a reason, are well-versed in the
> technology in question, and very much able to provide suggestions to
> the WG.

It's not wrong.

It's badly worded, possibly bordering on rudeness.  It certainly lacks 
context.  And it probably doesn't apply to BOFs.  But it's not wrong.
WG face-to-face meetings are for resolving open issues.  Given 1-3 
hours, three times a year, these face to face meetings are not 
reasonable for any other purpose.  That's why doing the foundational 
work on the mailing list is essential.
We need to be /far/ more helpful to new folk who show up (on the mailing 
list or at the f2f) but having them take f2f time for education is 
simply not appropriate.  The time is too valuable.
If there really is an organizational shift towards making f2f wg 
meetings target education of new folk, then the meetings will cease to 
have /any/ utility for getting actual work done.  Really.
d/

ps. Small disclaimer: for ongoing work, it is often useful/necessary to 
start a status summary of the current situation.  Done well enough, 
these can look asymptotically similar to a tutorial.  But really, they 
are for the entire group, not (just) for new folk...

pps. and...
On 7/27/2013 11:02 AM, SM wrote:> At 23:17 26-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
> The following will be discussed in the DMARC BoF:
>
>    "a mechanism for protecting the <display-name> portion of the
> RFC5322.From field"
>
> My guess is that it might be educational. :-)

   I'm involved with the DMARC effort.  I'm almost positive it won't be...


--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net