Subject: [edu-team] Another type of tutorial?

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:42:06 +0200

Phil Hallam-Baker said this on the ietf list:

 > I suggest that there is a much bigger need for updates on what is going on
 > in other standards bodies. IETF, OASIS and W3C are roughly the same size,
 > all are at or close to capacity in terms of standards making ...
 >
 > In DIX we had a situation where about a third of the BOF consisted of
 > piecemeal education of the audience re SAML.

I think that's a very good point. Whether this sort of thing fits EDU's
remit or the technical plenary is another question.

     Brian

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:14:57 -0500

From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "EDU Team" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: [edu-team] Another type of tutorial?

At some point during our discussion of "technical tutorials", I typed:

> Not as part of the current round of charter discussions, but - has anyone 
> besides me looked at the way IEEE does "tutorials"? People are actually 
> expected to present "incoming" work at the tutorial level, in evening 
> sessions. For example, the IEEE 802.3 tutorials are available at 
> http://www.ieee802.org/3/tutorial/index.html. I don't know if this is 
> someplace we ought to go, but at least it does seem that other SDOs are OK 
> with presenting technical tutorials, at certain points in the process. (If 
> you reply to this part of my note, please put it in another thread, so we 
> don't drive Avri and Brian nuts as they prepare for discussions with IESG)

I can say more about this if it is helpful. Would it be helpful?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:36:15 +0200

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> Not as part of the current round of charter discussions, but - has 
>> anyone besides me looked at the way IEEE does "tutorials"? People are 
>> actually expected to present "incoming" work at the tutorial level, in 
>> evening sessions. For example, the IEEE 802.3 tutorials are available 
>> at http://www.ieee802.org/3/tutorial/index.html. I don't know if this 
>> is someplace we ought to go, but at least it does seem that other SDOs 
>> are OK with presenting technical tutorials, at certain points in the 
>> process. (If you reply to this part of my note, please put it in 
>> another thread, so we don't drive Avri and Brian nuts as they prepare 
>> for discussions with IESG)
> 
> 

That sounds as if it more IETF-process than EDU-specific.
And also related to the BOF process. So it probably belongs
in a different thread, but I'm not sure which one.

     Brian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 07:02:01 -0500

Many twisty parallel discussions, all alike...

> in a different thread, but I'm not sure which one.

My intention was twofold:

- point out that other SDOs DO give very specific technical tutorials 
without getting sued, and

- point out that we now have no late evening sessions, so it might be 
possible to slot technical tutorials into "empty space", as IEEE does (if 
you don't want to go to the tutorials tonight, go to dinner).

There are probably other reasons to think about IEEE-style tutorials, 
including the comment that if we're supposed to be getting "cross-area 
review" based on the current meeting format which is strongly focused on 
document status and on changes since the last IETF, we're probably doomed, 
so it would be helpful to provide short overview presentations (and maybe 
WGs could decide that they need to give a short overview presentation during 
a tutorial, so they could have all their WG meeting time to do work, and 
people who want to know what's going on don't have to attend five days of 
meetings to figure that out).

But as Brian points out, that's not EDU stuff.

Thanks,

Spencer