Subject: [edu-team] "New Work" in Paris?

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:54:59 -0500

We had a goal to show this class (in some form) to the IESG in Paris -
how can we move toward that goal?

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:00:29 -0400

> how can we move toward that goal?

Can you clarify a bit on what this is? Is this a presentation to the
public about how to (effectively) bring new work to the IETF (i.e.,
how to run a successful BOF)?

And I assume what you really mean here is put together a proposal that
the IESG can review (and give a green light too after whatever
interation is needed), followed by having the presentation actually
take place at the Paris meeting?

Thomas

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:01:45 -0300

Hi,

Yes, one of the planned items has involved creating a talk on how to 
initiate new work, whether within an existing charter, within an 
existing WG, or within an existing area (don't think we presumed to go 
so far as to how to introduce work for which there is not are).

We realized how controversial this could be.  So the plans have always 
included creating a draft and presenting it to the power that be for 
review and discussion.

So we hope to have the draft ready for Paris.

a.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:46:33 -0500

... and, of course, my apologies for not providing sufficient context 
for my question.

How can I help make progress towards this goal?

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "avri doria" <[email-masked]>
To: "EDU Team" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [edu-team] "New Work" in Paris?

> existing WG, or within an existing area (don't think we presumed to 
> go so far as to how to introduce work for which there is not are).
>
> We realized how controversial this could be.  So the plans have 
> always included creating a draft and presenting it to the power that 
> be for review and discussion.
>

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:57:38 -0300

Hi,

Has the team working on a first draft got a first draft?  I figure the 
first step is to review it with the EDU team.

Also we need to tell Brian how much of the IESG (and perhaps others) 
time wee need from them in Paris.  My assumption would be about 2 hours 
to both present the draft and have time for discussion.  Does this make 
sense?

a.

On 6 apr 2005, at 08.46, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "avri doria" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:09:20 +0200

I honestly don't think you can get 2 hours of the IESG for this.
We get little enough f2f time as it is - one hour during Sunday
morning is more likely to work.

    Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:59:47 -0400

> I honestly don't think you can get 2 hours of the IESG for this.

Right. And I'm missing something very basic here. Why do we need a lot
of IESG time? Is there some assumption that only the IESG can prepare
or give this sort of presentation? I certainly don't think that's the
case.

Seems like this is something we (where we means us or us plus some
specific additional help) could do, with appropriate input/review from
the IESG.

Or maybe I completely miss the topic here. Is it how to get new work
added to charters and how to prepare for and have successful BOFs, or
is it the topic of what work is appropriate for the IETF to work on in
the first place (which isn't exactly an EDU topic, I would think).

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:03:21 -0500

> specific additional help) could do, with appropriate input/review 

If I understand correctly, I believe this is what we're trying to do.

I believe our concern was that we not tell people things about the way 
the IESG discusses and approves new work that are not actually true.

Spencer

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:27:47 -0400

> the IESG discusses and approves new work that are not actually true.

Should be a true statement on everything we do. :-)

The other thing to clarify, I would have assumed that the goal is to
have our first presentation on the topic in Paris, not present the
outline of what we want to do to the IESG. (Indeed, I would argue that
any goal of getting feedback from the IESG _during_ the Paris meeting
is the wrong starting point, since they are particularly busy then.)

But that is not the way I'm reading what other have been saying on
this thread so far.

Thomas

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:41:36 -0300

Hi,

Trying to respond to several points:

- on the topic.

the idea is not to give advice on what work should be brought in, but 
on the approach someone should take.  for example:
  - understand carefully why one wants to bring the work to the ietf - 
understand what one want to achieve and make sure those goals are in 
keeping with ietf goals.  this means understand the charter of the 
ietf, explicitly stated in various docs and implicit.
  - read the charters of relevant groups and see if the work or type of 
work is already included in chartered work - if so then how does one go 
about introducing the work to the Wg, i.e. list, drafts, talking to 
chairs ...
  - if there is a wg that is relevant but it is not in the charter, then 
how does one go about trying to get it added to a charter
  - if there is no WG covering it then what?  How to determine which 
Area to try in, determining interest, procedures relating to BoFs
  - if it doesn't seem to fit into any area then what?

Also include issues like the risk shopping ADs or of taking a combative 
adversarial approach.

   etc...

- on why get IESG time.

The topic was considered so controversial when it last spoken of that 
we decided that anything we put out should be vetted.  the iesg seemed 
like one good spot for vetting.

-on 2 hours be an excessive amount of time to request.

We certainly can prepare the draft and send it them for review, and 
then request time for them to comment. this then could be as short as 
required by their schedules or as long as required by their issues.  
and yes, since the chair of the iesg, and at least one iesg member is 
on this list, wish several emeritus members, we should be able to scrub 
it fairly well before floating it.

Anyway we a volunteer team set a while back to work on a draft (Paul, 
Scott, Spencer), and I contributed a company specific presentation I 
gave to ETRI on the subject a year ago.  since there are new members, 
perhaps there are other volunteers.  It would be good to have a draft 
to review as soon as possible.  Perhaps even taking my ETRI 
presentation and having the team do a generalization etc pass on it and 
then sending it to the team would be a good start.

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:46:32 +0200

> We certainly can prepare the draft and send it them for review, and then request time for them to comment. this then could be as short as required by their schedules or as long as required by their issues. 

That's the best approach, I think.

    Brian