Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials

Dave

I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
IETF has found their working group.  This is not always easy.  Fine if
your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'witty' name seems to me less
than welcoming.  Think about it as a stranger to these parts.  What
comes to mind when you encounter; salud, straw drinks insipid lemonade -
behave, kitten vipr, cuss!

If we had some way of measuring the success of a working group, I would
use it to test my hypothesis that the closer the short-form name is to
the subject of a working group, then the more successful that working
group will be.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Jari Arkko" <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:25 AM

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