Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

On 7/27/2013 11:01 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > It reads rudely when taken out of context. But try reading the whole
> > paragraph in RFC 3184:
...
> > Exactly. My experience back when I was a newcomer was that it was
> > easy enough to ask beginner's questions after the meeting, and obviously
> > wrong to do so during the session. This remains true years later, if I
> > drop into a WG that I'm not familiar with.
> Let me clarify why I thought it was wrong. I don't think I'm disagreeing with 
> you, actually. I do agree that asking beginner questions in a working group 
> meeting would be inappropriate. And I agree that the meetings are not a place 
> for education. And I agree that we should not become an organisation where the 
> f2f time gets the primary role.
>
> However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to observe the 
> IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are embarking on. The 
> colleague that has been implementing The Protocol for the last two years in the 
> office, but is now coming to the IETF for the first time. The guy who has 
> something to say about the operational experience of our results. The team who 
> brought their idea to the IETF to be standardised. And so on.

Jari (et al)

I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more 
interesting this year, than most previous ones.  So I think it's worth 
pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk 
better, as well as be clear about when and where and how such 
accommodation is /and is not/ appropriate.
Your reply to me, above, lists different types of new folk -- and of 
course the list is reasonable and might be useful -- but I didn't see 
the actual clarification of what you felt was wrong in the target text 
or how you agreed with me an others.  So, now you've got me curious for 
that detail...

And while I've got the floor I'll offer a thought I had after a brief 
conversation with Jari at last night's reception:
     Warning:  This calls for working groups to do a little more work.

The working group home page and the working group wiki have become 
excellent tools for assembling relevant documents.  For someone trying 
to get started in the wg, these are incredibly helpful.
     My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief summary 
about the current state of the working group, ideally listing the 
current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the current focus of 
effort -- and major open issues.
     I'll suggest that it be updated after every meeting.

Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without 
newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what 
progress they are and are not making.
An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending upon 
the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use.  In a supportive 
environment, the exercise is helpful.  In a hostile one, not so much.
Basically, if a wg is being diligent and candid in summarizing its 
problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be 
helpful.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net