Subject: [edu-team] a middle aged moment

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 08:33:36 +1000

Hi,

---or maybe just the effect of going from IETF to ICANN without a  
break in between
    but i think i have forgotten something

It seems that the class schedule for the next IETF needs to be ready  
immediately.

We talked about this at our meeting, but I am confused on one of the  
classes:

Session 1

Newcomers Training  (use existing write-up)
Editor's Training  (use existing write-up)
Introduction to Routing, Bridging and Switching  (use existing write-up)

Session 2

Newcomer's in French
Editing using xml2rfc  (use existing write-up)
TBD

I though we had talked about offering leadership again.  but when I  
looked, we have offered this the last 2 IETF's and I don't know if we  
made a decision to offer it again.  It does seem like something that  
could even have a fixed place on the schedule.

In any case, should we offer it Montreal?  Or should something else  
be in its place.

thanks.

a.

PS. Thomas, since you were kind enough to have taken some notes with  
the action items, can you send that to the list.

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:43:03 -0600

I thought that we were leaning toward doing WG Leadership again (even after 
doing it the last two times). Is it possible that we would have a clue about 
whether RAI will split SIP and SIPPING (as they are discussing)? That would 
give us four new WG chairs for the class, and we usually have five or six 
(with the same number of active editors) when we have a good turnout.

What was the other class we were discussing? I thought it was a better 
choice, and now I can't even remember what it was!

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
To: "EDU Team" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 4:33 PM
Subject: [edu-team] a middle aged moment

> Hi,
>
> ---or maybe just the effect of going from IETF to ICANN without a  break 
> in between
> In any case, should we offer it Montreal?  Or should something else  be in 
> its place.
>
>
> thanks.
>
> a.
>
> PS. Thomas, since you were kind enough to have taken some notes with  the 
> action items, can you send that to the list.
>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 13:53:21 +1000

On 2 apr 2006, at 13.43, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> I thought that we were leaning toward doing WG Leadership again  
> (even after doing it the last two times). Is it possible that we  
> would have a clue about whether RAI will split SIP and SIPPING (as  
> they are discussing)? That would give us four new WG chairs for the  
> class, and we usually have five or six (with the same number of  
> active editors) when we have a good turnout.

I am comfortable with doing that, especially if you do the few  
changes we spoke of during the meeting (e.g. hints for building  
consensus, some intro to the tools work, updates on any of the  
changes made - especially if any have been approved).

>
> What was the other class we were discussing? I thought it was a  
> better choice, and now I can't even remember what it was!

We talked about several new 'technical' classes (e.g. (G)MPLS, IP  
Telephony ), but i don't believe we settled on anything or were  
planning it for the IETF66.

but i could be wrong.

a.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:47:35 +1000

Hi,

Yes, that corresponds to what i recall was the approach favored  
during the meeting.

thanks

a.

On 2 apr 2006, at 14.11, Radia Perlman wrote:

> If we are thinking of new technical ones, I think we need to have  
> them developed before we commit
> to them, so perhaps we should be asking the MPLS/GMPLS volunteer,  
> and perhaps a "telephony"
> volunteer to start preparing so it will be ready for 2 IETFs from now?
>
> Radia
>
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>>> would have a clue about whether RAI will split SIP and SIPPING  
>>> (as  they are discussing)? That would give us four new WG chairs  
>>> for the  class, and we usually have five or six (with the same  
>>> number of  active editors) when we have a good turnout.
>>
>>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:11:27 -0800

If we are thinking of new technical ones, I think we need to have them 
developed before we commit
to them, so perhaps we should be asking the MPLS/GMPLS volunteer, and 
perhaps a "telephony"
volunteer to start preparing so it will be ready for 2 IETFs from now?

Radia

---

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 09:58:40 -0400

Hi Spencer,

> What was the other class we were discussing? I thought it was 
> a better choice, and now I can't even remember what it was!

I don't remember discussing a different class for Montreal.

We did discuss starting an effort on "Bringing New Work to the IETF",
starting with a session at the ongoing WG chair's lunch in Montreal and
possibly leading to a regular Sunday session in the Fall.  This might also
involve some other resouces such as I-Ds or web pages.  I don't want to put
words in his mouth, so he should speak up if I am mistaken, but I think that
Thomas and I agreed to work on this together.

Margaret

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 13:11:39 -0500

Apparently I should start taking notes more seriously!

I am POSITIVE that I remember lobbying to NOT do WG leadership in Montreal, 
because (1) we had offered it the last two IETFs, and (2) there was a class 
we were discussing that I thought we needed more, and we didn't have a slot 
for it if we did WG leadership.

I don't think it was a technical topic, because I thought we were still in 
"stay under the radar on new technical topics" mode.

And I don't think it was New-Work, because we had already decided that WG 
Chairs luncheon was the right place to introduce New-Work.

If you see my brain wandering around your current geography, please gather 
it up and mail it home, 'cause it sure as shootin' isn't in THIS area code 
:-(

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:46:30 +0200

I like that, because it gives us enough time to position
such a new technical class relative to the new EDU charter
(which I need to send out for review soon).

I too can't remember what the other Montreal class might
have been.

      Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, that corresponds to what i recall was the approach favored  during 
> the meeting.
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
>>>> they are discussing)? That would give us four new WG chairs  for 
>>>> the  class, and we usually have five or six (with the same  number 
>>>> of  active editors) when we have a good turnout.
>>>
>>>
>>>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:02:32 +0200

Hi,

so maybe I am wrong and we never resolved this.  and then the mistake  
i made was in miscounting.

any suggestions on what we should do?

My thoughts:

- just offer 5 this time?
- i personally still think that doing the leadership one again, after  
some remodeling, is a reasonable approach.

other comments?

thanks
a.

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:35:16 -0400 (EDT)

> - i personally still think that doing the leadership one again, after some 
> remodeling, is a reasonable approach.

Me too.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:29:38 +0200

Do it, IMHO.

BTW, the urgency for setting the agenda is due to

a) the tutorials being now in the registration process
b) a new goal of opening registration a full 3 months in advance
    to help people who have to apply for visas.

so Avri does need to respond basically now.

    Brian

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:12:32 +0200

hi,

yes, i feel at an impasse.

I think that if we don't have agreement to do Leadership again, and I  
would like to spend some time discussing the content of the class on  
this list if we do so decide,
then we should just go with 5 classes this time.

I do think we can have a different teaching team if that is the issue.

a.

On 5 apr 2006, at 13.29, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>> - i personally still think that doing the leadership one again,  
>>> after some remodeling, is a reasonable approach.
>> Me too.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:44:44 -0500

Many twisty passages, all different...

Agree that we have PLENTY of teaching talent for WG Leadership, and agree 
that the number of changes we discussed to WG Leadership are doable in the 
IETF 66 timeframe.

After more attempts to bring back the thoughts of teleconferences past, I'm 
ALMOST sure that I'm remembering discussing whether IPR needed to be its own 
class or not.

Spencer

> would like to spend some time discussing the content of the class on  this 
> list if we do so decide,

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:00:46 -0400

Avri: should we add Jordi as a new member? He's interested in the
geographic/linguistic aspect.

GMPLS talk?

Need to get revised charter approved

Should we have an open meeting in Montreal?

Marc Blanchet has volunteered (or been volunteered) to do the Montreal
newcomers session in French.

EDU Topic to explore: making WG agendas better, guidelines for "good"
    WG minutes. (Spencer to add something on this to newcomers?)

xml2rfc: find  someone to teach? Have it taught by a team?

Spencer: will approach Rohan Mahey (sp?) on technical writing

web page: is it organized well? Does it have xml2rfc templates readily
available?

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:28:13 -0500

Anything we were talking about me adding would have been to WG Leadership 
(agendas and minutes both)...

It might be nice to have Jordi look at the WG Leadership talk because we've 
tried to tell WG chairs and editors how to work with ESL contributors in 
several places, but most of the input came from EFL types :-)

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:45:20 +0200

hi,

this sounds like it would be worth doing for IETF66.

so any objections to my adding the new revised WG leadership class?

a.

On 5 apr 2006, at 18.28, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Anything we were talking about me adding would have been to WG  
> Leadership (agendas and minutes both)...
>
> It might be nice to have Jordi look at the WG Leadership talk  
> because we've tried to tell WG chairs and editors how to work with  
> ESL contributors in several places, but most of the input came from  
> EFL types :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:25:46 -0700

Actually, the thought of evening classes sounds like a great idea. The 
rooms are already there,
wireless is already there, so I don't think it would cost anything. And 
there would be enough time to
actually have 15 minute overviews of every WG. We could organize one for 
each area, perhaps.
So there could be an "update on Transport WGs", where someone could play 
host and give an
overview of the area, and then have different people describe what's 
going on in each WG.

Perhaps just Monday, since Wed and Thursday are the plenaries, and 
Tuesday is the social. So perhaps
each IETF we could cover one area.

Radia

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:43:50 +0200

Especially for Newcomers I think this would be very useful
(without turning it into a conference).

I spoke to a few Newbies at IETF65 and that was one thing they mentioned
could be useful for new people to make it easier to find their way in to
the IETF.

Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:35:02 +0200

But is anybody here *against* doing the leadership class again?

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:15:46 +0200

You mean starting at 9 p.m. or something like that?

I don't know. I'm not sure how many would have the
persistence.

BTW, the rooms are not necessarily free of charge. In
conference center models such as Paris, we were basically
paying for the rooms by the hour. That doesn't have to be
a show-stopper, but needs to be remembered.

    Brian

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:28:32 +0200

> I don't know. I'm not sure how many would have the

Yes, that might be true.

What if we ask Ray to include a question about that in the survey?

Mirjam

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:17:49 -0400

> Yes, that might be true.

I too have serious concerns about this. And it goes both ways, i.e.,
presenters and audience.

But, personally, I really wish this group would spend less time on
general overview and technology stuff and focus on (what I believe
should be) our core mission, namely, helping the IETF work better,
through education/training. Bigger bang for the buck here, IMO.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:24:15 -0400

> Thomas and I agreed to work on this together.

Not sure if I said this, but I'm happy to have these words come out of
my mouth. :-)

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:26:47 -0400

> But is anybody here *against* doing the leadership class again?

Not me. I'm for this, in that it is imporant and a core item.

But, do we have data about attendance? I.e., if people will come, by
all means let's do it. If there was concern about lack of critical
mass, then it makes sense to think about not having it again in
Montreal.

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 08:31:22 -0500

Paul may have counted in Dallas - I did not - but I did ask who was actually 
chairing a WG, and who was actually editing a WG document, and got about 5-7 
hands on each (with minimal overlap). Since we usually had about 10-ish New 
WG Chairs when we did the Monday lunch training, that looked like critical 
mass to me, in Montreal.

I know of a few new WG chairs being appointed - the biggest "known unknown" 
being a possible SIP/SIPPING split into four working groups, etc. - but do 
not, of course, have any idea how many new WG editors are likely to pop up.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 07:30:42 +0200

Hi,

The attendance was fine in Dallas.  Pretty much on a par with the  
other classes, and certainly more then the RFC editor's class.

To let you know, the time had come when i could delay not longer and  
had to give Marcia the schedule.  I include WG leadership.  As far as  
I am concerned this does not oblige you or Paul unless you want it  
to.    Though please let me know soon if you want to do it.

As a team we should do a review of the class and discuss any changes  
that might be needed.

thanks to all for their comments.

a.

On 7 apr 2006, at 15.31, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Paul may have counted in Dallas - I did not - but I did ask who was  
> actually chairing a WG, and who was actually editing a WG document,  
> and got about 5-7 hands on each (with minimal overlap). Since we  
> usually had about 10-ish New WG Chairs when we did the Monday lunch  
> training, that looked like critical mass to me, in Montreal.
>
> I know of a few new WG chairs being appointed - the biggest "known  
> unknown" being a possible SIP/SIPPING split into four working  
> groups, etc. - but do not, of course, have any idea how many new WG  
> editors are likely to pop up.