Subject: [edu-team] Thoughts about a very simple EDU questionnaire

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:59:38 +1300

The IETF's EDU team organises the IETF's internal training, such as
the Sunday afternoon tutorials at each IETF meeting. We welcome
comments and discussion on the [email-masked] list at any time.
(Join via https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-discuss.)
Or you can immediately fill in a very short, anonymous survey at
<URL>. Please tell us what's annoying you in the IETF that we can
fix by training and education.

-------

I have attended approximately [N] IETF meetings.

I participate in approximately [N] IETF working groups.

I have contributed text to approximately [N] drafts or RFCs.

I have acted in at least one IETF service role such as WG Chair,
Directorate member, etc. [Y/N].

Please list your top three or four annoyances in the IETF that
you think could be reduced by better training and education of
participants, WG Chairs, etc.

(If you list problems with existing rules and tools, we will pass
those on, but the EDU team can only work directly on training.)

[1.

 2.

 3.

 4.                          ]

Thank you!

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:21:05 -0800

I'd prefer getting more comments than less.  So I'd remove the phrase "that
we can
fix by training and education".

I know we don't want "not enough cookies at break".  And if it's too
open-ended, nothing will leap to their minds to mention.

So perhaps "what do you think needs improvement in how IETF works, and what
could you imagine could be done to improve it"  The edu-team focuses on
education and training, but if you make suggestions that are outside that
scope, we will make an effort to forward your comments to a more
appropriate place."

I'm also not sure that all the questions about how many IETFs, how many
documents, how many WGs, are all that relevant, and might be intimidating.
Gives the impression we'll only care about comments from "real
IETFers"...those who have been WG chairs, RFC authors, etc.  But we really
want to remove impediments that make it hard to break into the perceived
"inner circle".

Radia

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:58:48 +1300

Hi Radia,

> scope, we will make an effort to forward your comments to a more

Well, OK (he said grudgingly). If you make it too open-ended, you will
get an awful lot of text to work through, and we might be accused of
exceeding our mandate too. (Therefore, in any case, we should get
Jari's comments on the proposed questions.)
> want to remove impediments that make it hard to break into the perceived

I could go either way on that. I think the number of meetings
attended will be helpful because it will tell us whether the comments
are first impressions or based on considerable experience. Also whether
the person is involved in multiple WGs helps evaluate the comments.
We could drop the other two questions for the reason you give.

    Brian

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 01:48:59 +0100

Hi Brian,

Thanks a for putting this together so quickly. I think it is good and I 
also agree with you that it is important to have some idea who is 
responding: more experienced IETF participants or newcomers. I would 
keep the questions in, at least the first two and maybe also question 4.

We could clarify in the into text that we welcome feedback from anyone, 
not just "oldies".

And yes, we should definitely send this to Jari or talk to him about it 
this week.

Mirjam