Subject: Re: Bottom feeders

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:40:56 EST

> > We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come 
> > back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home 
> > unhappy.
> 
> interesting idea.
> 
> so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
> different than it is, and going home disappointed, what can we do to 
> make future prospective attendees more aware of what they're getting into?
> 
> Keith

I don't know if this is done or not, but all first time registrants
should be sent an e-mail suggesting that they read the
Internet-Standards Process and Newcommer's Orientation presentation.
Plus be advised that they should attend the orientation on Sunday.

I remember my first trip to IETF.  I thought that I could simply
arrive and get a standard adopted.  That was three years ago.  Many
RFCs later I'm still here.  But it is not because involving myself in
the IETF was easy.  For a long time I felt like an outsider.  Even
after attending a year's worth of meetings.  But I kept attending
because I had something that I wanted/needed to accomplish.

I think the important point to remember is that we attend IETF to
accomplish a specific technical goal (developing an internet
standard).  We are not here to be a part of a fraternity;to find a
job; not to find employees; to find authors; to disrupt others; ...

I welcome all to attend IETF meetings.  But I want people to attend
that are going to do work; not make it more difficult for me to
accomplish my work.  If people come to IETF unprepared and without the
intention to actively contribute to standards development and then
leave disappointed and frustrated, I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:26:43 -0800 (PST)

% > > We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come 
% > > back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home 
% > > unhappy.
% > >
% > > Brian
% > 
% > so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
% > different than it is, and going home disappointed, what can we do to 
% > make future prospective attendees more aware of what they're getting into?
% > 
% > Keith
% 
% I remember my first trip to IETF.  I thought that I could simply
% arrive and get a standard adopted.  That was three years ago.  Many
% RFCs later I'm still here.  But it is not because involving myself in
% the IETF was easy.  For a long time I felt like an outsider.  Even
% after attending a year's worth of meetings.  But I kept attending
% because I had something that I wanted/needed to accomplish.
%
% Jeffrey

	I enjoyed a much different experience. I was asked by a couple of
	WG chairs if I would be willing to take on tasks that needed to be
	done, was invited to share opinions and thoughts by folks on the
	IAB... as a first time attendee. Getting involved was easy. Those
	responsible encouraged new blood.  Recent experience seems to indicate
	a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps 
	much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting today,
	I'd avoid the IETF as a venue. 

--bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:10:56 -0500

I think it's still the case that someone who demonstrates knowledge of
the background material and understanding of how the Internet works is
quite welcome at IETF.  Clueful people are in short supply, it's usually 
quite easy to distinguish them from less clueful people, and clueful 
folks that show a willingness to contribute seem to get the opportunity 
to do so quite quickly. 

Having said that, I will observe that the most effective path to making 
useful contributions in IETF meetings seems to be to first make useful 
contributions to a WG mailing list.  Folks who aren't actively participating
in at least one WG mailing list should probably think twice before 
attending an IETF meeting.  (however there are other reasons - such as
relevant BOFs - which might justify attendance anyway)

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:57:51 -0600

Bill Manning wrote:
...
>         I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.

If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved when
we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.

If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to know.

  Brian

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:54:18 -0800 (PST)

% > Bill said:
% >       a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
% >       much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting today,
% >       I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.
% 
% If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
% increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
% own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved when
% we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.
% 
% If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
% them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to know.
% 
%   Brian

I have reason to beleive that newcomers are NOT getting a fair hearing.
Attached is a sanitized bit of email I received in the last week. 
	------------------------------------

<        Just surfed the <WG> archive in response to the issues raised at
<the IETF plenary. Are the recent posts representative of the standard mode
<of discussion for the list? 
<
<        I am trying to decide the extent to which I wish to become involved
<in the <specific> area. So far I have had the area director hiss at me when I
<stated my company name at the <WG> meeting and been told that certain
<solutions could not exist because 'so many clever people have already
<considered the problem'.

-- 
--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:03:41 -0500

> <considered the problem'.

Bill:  Could you clarify 2 things, if you know the answers to either?

a) Was the AD hissing because the newcomer's company has made a well-financed
but technically broken attempt to be an 800-pound gorilla in the <WG> area?
(No need to name names - there's ENOUGH dominant companies that have done
stupid things to go around).  I could certainly see an AD hissing if a newcomer
was perceived as having been sent by a company to perpetrate more foolishness
upon the networking community.  It wouldn't JUSTIFY it, but AD's are
human too. ;)

b) Was the "certain solution" one of the things that we've already beaten
into the ground, *know* is a bad idea, but it keeps popping up again anyhow?
Again, no need to name names - there's ENOUGH bad ideas that keep resurfacing.
I'm sure *everybody* has their favorite "Oh no, not THAT idea again!" topic
that comes up every 9-18 months on the IETF list. ;)

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0800

> a) Was the AD hissing because the newcomer's company has made a well-
> financed but technically broken attempt to be an 800-pound gorilla in the
> <WG> area?

actually, it was not the AD, but the co-chair.  and it was in the midst of
a bunch of other humorous moments in the wg.  and yes indeed, an 800-ton
gorilla with a bad technical scam and a global bad rep for it and an
attitude to go with.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:13:43 -0800 (PST)

% Bill:  Could you clarify 2 things, if you know the answers to either?
% 
% 				Valdis Kletnieks

	I was not present so I could not clarify.  It does seem pretty
	clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented 
	with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
	for standards approval/rubber stamping.  It used to be that the
	IETF was the venue for exploring "bad-ideas". PreIETF oldtimers
	have noted that what was a bad idea a decade ago may be todays
	breakthrough. Hence tossing an idea once should not relegate it
	to limbo in perpetuity. (see John Klensins concept of using
	DNS classes. Last decade, a bad idea... now, a plausable avenue
	of exploration!)

-- 
--bill

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:19:52 -0500

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
   Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0800

Hmm.... and in a previous thread we heard lots of people applauding the
idea of having the wg-chair tap the microphone, or even hit a switch
which turns off the speaker's microphone in that case.....

							- Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:39:28 -0600

Bill,

This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored. 

   Brian

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 06:28:07 -0800 (PST)

Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
 or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
 to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
 was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company 
 that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
 if done in a lighthearted way.  

% Bill,
% 
% This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored. 
% 
%    Brian
% 
% Bill Manning wrote:
% > 
% > % > Bill said:
% > % >       a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
% > % >       much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting today,
% > % >       I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.
% > %
% > % If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
% > % increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
% > % own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved when
% > % we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.
% > %
% > % If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
% > % them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to know.
% > %
% > %   Brian
% > 
% > I have reason to beleive that newcomers are NOT getting a fair hearing.
% > Attached is a sanitized bit of email I received in the last week.
% >         ------------------------------------
% > 
% > <        Just surfed the <WG> archive in response to the issues raised at
% > <the IETF plenary. Are the recent posts representative of the standard mode
% > <of discussion for the list?
% > <
% > <        I am trying to decide the extent to which I wish to become involved
% > <in the <specific> area. So far I have had the area director hiss at me when I
% > <stated my company name at the <WG> meeting and been told that certain
% > <solutions could not exist because 'so many clever people have already
% > <considered the problem'.
% > 
% > --
% > --bill
% 
% 

-- 
--bill

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:19:36 -0800

>  if done in a lighthearted way.

i suppose it's my turn to argue for the politically-incorrect perspective.

i don't think it's unreasonable for people to do their homework, a lot of
homework.

i don't think it's unreasonable for us to admit that quality counts, and
that bad ideas are, well..., bad.

i don't think it's unreasonable for the ietf membership to develop
auto-immune responses to badness. quite the contrary, it is praiseworthy.

obviously, it would be preferable if the corporate type in question had more
clue and less agenda.

obviously, it would be preferable for someone to have privately explained
that fact to him or her.

regardless, i want to thank the chair in question for acting as an agent for
adult supervision.

/mtr

ps: i have no idea what incident we're talking about, but that obviously
didn't stop me from commenting on it.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:46:36 -0800 (PST)

% 
% > Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
% >  or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
% >  to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
% presented,
% >  was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company
% >  that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
% >  if done in a lighthearted way.
% 
% i suppose it's my turn to argue for the politically-incorrect perspective.
% 
% i don't think it's unreasonable for people to do their homework, a lot of
% homework.

	Me either.
 
% i don't think it's unreasonable for us to admit that quality counts, and
% that bad ideas are, well..., bad.

	Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.

% i don't think it's unreasonable for the ietf membership to develop
% auto-immune responses to badness. quite the contrary, it is praiseworthy.

	True, but to shoot the messenger, in public, reflects poorly on
	the people skills of those whom we are supposed to follow.

% obviously, it would be preferable if the corporate type in question had more
% clue and less agenda.
% obviously, it would be preferable for someone to have privately explained
% that fact to him or her.

	Yup.

% regardless, i want to thank the chair in question for acting as an agent for
% adult supervision.

	Perhaps. I might also be prepared to thank the co-chair in question,
	but I was not there and don't know the specifics. And I may not even
	care all that much. What I would expect is (un)common curtesy and 
	respect for the attendees and participants on the part of the WG chairs
	and the respective ADs. Adult supervision does not require abandoning
	these traits.
	
% /mtr

--bill

---

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:58:54 -0500

>quite welcome at IETF.

That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
an "old-boy" network in operation.  I'm not saying that such a thing is
necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
overcome it if you're a newbie.

(It's entirely possible that I didn't have enough background in the
beginning, but I really thought I did.  Maybe that's a separate problem:
how much background do you really need?  It's not always obvious to a
newbie)

--Ken

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:21:44 -0800

> Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.

thanks for the quotes file entry!

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:25:39 -0500

I was not present so I could not clarify.  It does seem pretty
        clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
        with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
        for standards approval/rubber stamping. 

in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:45:01 -0800 (PST)

% 
% > Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
% 
% thanks for the quotes file entry!
% 

Proper attribution is then required. It came to me originally  from Jon Postel
and was independently espoused by Dave Farber. I would hope that you don't
attribute things to me that come from elswhere.

-- 
--bill

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:35:34 -0800

>overcome it if you're a newbie.

Since the IETF professes to be open, it's a good thing that we periodically 
worry about the legitimacy of the claim.  On the other hand, we should not 
start beating ourselves up unless there is some pretty clear evidence that 
actual barriers to IETF entry are inappropriate.

The IETF is a distinctive culture.  Any long-standing group is.

Being open does not mean that new arrivals are free from learning the 
special handshakes and the technical peculiarities of our work; they are 
essential for quality of the process and quality of the specifications.

Being open means that the details of the peculiarities are accessible and 
that those who do learn the incantations, design philosophies, etc., can 
participate with significant influence.

The tests of this involve looking at who puts forward design ideas that are 
accepted, who edits documents, chairs working groups, and becomes area 
directors.  Up the chain, the barriers should be more significant, of 
course, since more depth of experience is to be expected.

My own observations for all of the IETF, and especially the areas I wander 
around in the most -- with many of the working groups involving 
participation by representatives from other, established technical 
communities -- is that the IETF is quite simply an exemplar of openness.

Yes, some individuals espouse unfriendly opinions about newbies.  The 
subject line of this thread is a painfully good example.  However we need 
to be careful not to select from the usual range of opinions and claim one 
or another sample is definitive.

The actual pattern of IETF community consensus is extremely friendly and 
supportive for new folks who work to learn the culture and participate in 
the work.

How many other standards organizations have unrestricted attendance, a 
newcomer's orientation, an introductory booklet, and an extensive guide for 
chairs?

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:47:15 -0800 (PST)

% 
%         I was not present so I could not clarify.  It does seem pretty
%         clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
%         with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
%         for standards approval/rubber stamping. 
% 
% in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
% but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
% 

True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
work already complete. This sad state of affairs is, IMHO, part of the
reason for the lack of tolerance. 

-- 
--bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:52:11 -0500

> work already complete. 

outsiders have tried to treat IETF like a rubber stamp for years; this
is nothing new.  but in my experience, IETF doesn't function that way - 
working groups feel quite free to change or discard earlier work.
(some are even hostile to earlier work)

Keith

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:57:47 -0800 (PST)

% 
% > % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
% > % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
% > %
% > 
% > True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
% > work already complete. 
% 
% outsiders have tried to treat IETF like a rubber stamp for years; this
% is nothing new.  but in my experience, IETF doesn't function that way - 
% working groups feel quite free to change or discard earlier work.
% (some are even hostile to earlier work)
% 
% Keith
% 

As have "insiders".  And yes, I've seen WG try and discard earlier work...
(btw, whats the distinguishing characteristic between an "outsider" and an "insider"?)

-- 
--bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:05:31 -0500

> And yes, I've seen WG try and discard earlier work...

I've seen them succeed, though perhaps not often enough.

> (btw, whats the distinguishing characteristic between an "outsider" and an "

I was remembering numerous instances when an organization would issue 
a press release of the form "we have protocol X, it's wonderful, and we're
submitting it to IETF"...eventually sending in an I-D which either got 
completely ignored or (in rare cases) got published as Experimental with
the title changed from "the X standard" to "FOOCORP's X protocol".

Keith

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:27:29 -0500

> overcome it if you're a newbie.

Unfortunately, it's hard for the old-boys to overcome, too.  They're
surrounded by a couple thousand people they don't know and a couple hundred
they do.  And they're there to work, which means they don't have time to
figure out which of the couple thousand are worth talking to; they're going
to talk to the couple hundred they already know are worthwhile.  Human
nature.

(Not everybody is like this; some are better.  But there are very few
people for whom it is easy.)

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Simply vanished--like an old oak table." --Lord|
[email-masked]|Percy, _Black Adder II_                         |
\=================================================================/

---

From: V Guruprasad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:37:18 -0500

> overcome it if you're a newbie.

Both the "old-boy" network and the undue skepticism are natural and occur
in every field. My intuition is, if you try to suppress them, they'll show
up in other ways!

On the other hand, I was a first-timer at the 49th IETF (although I was 
already known to some in mmedia wg before), and had a rather atrocious
proposal to lobby for (see my I-D - you *can't* possibly believe it at
first reading :-). I've seen no less openness and no more skepticism at
the IETF than within my own organisation. I think the people are wonderful,
including many "old timers" - I quite enjoyed the many first-hand stories
in the many hallway discussions.

just my 2c.
-p.

---

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:24:01 -0500

>actual barriers to IETF entry are inappropriate.

Please understand that I'm not saying that the barriers to IETF entry
are inappropriate (but then, I'm not sure what _is_ appropriate).  I've
certainly seen much worse in other organizations.

>special handshakes and the technical peculiarities of our work; they are

Hm, my mistake, I guess.  I read on the IETF web page that the IETF didn't
have any secret handshakes; I guess I was wrong :-)

>supportive for new folks who work to learn the culture and participate in 

Okay, serious question time: exactly what are you basing this statement
on?  Converstations with newbies?  If so, you certainly didn't talk to
me, because I would have _never_ said anything of the sort.  If you're
not basing this statement on conversations with newbies, then how can
you honestly know whether or not the IETF consensus is friendly to
newbies?

The best model I can think of for a newbie at IETF is the old way you
used to teach people to swim: throw them into the deep end of the pool
and let them figure it out on their own.  You either eventually figure
it out, or you give up.  Things like the Newcomers Orientation are
helpful (and FWIW, I _did_ attend that), but it's akin to having
someone describe swimming on land versus learning it yourself; yes, you
have someplace to start, but somehow the details are missed.  I don't
fault anyone for this, because I'm not sure it's possible to explain
all of the intricacies of the IETF without actually experiencing it for
yourself.

I guess the point I'd like to make is that from my perspective, newcomers
aren't exactly welcomed; it's more like they're quietly tolerated until
they gather enough clue-points.

Now, the _other_ part of this discussion is: Is this an appropriate
entry barrier for newbies?  Even though I feel it wasn't perhaps the
most pleasant experience, I don't feel the current "entrance exam" ( :-) )
was that unreasonable; as Dave has pointed out, every organization has
it's own culture, and I feel it's reasonable for people to have to know
something about an organization's culture before they can be expected
to contribute.  It's just _learning_ about that culture can be rather
daunting, and I could easily see it being an insurmountable task for
some people.

--Ken (recent, and still sometimes, newbie)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:31:08 -0500

--On Thursday, 21 December, 2000 06:28 -0800 Bill Manning
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
>  was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a
>  market-driven company  that is flush with cash, its no reason
>  to berate people in public, even if done in a lighthearted
>  way.  

I don't want to start kicking a dead horse here, and everyone
has been (appropriately) circumspect about the circumstances.
Unfortunately, I can imagine, without much trouble, a scenario
in which, e.g., someone showed up and claimed to "represent" a
company with considerable IETF experience (and other employees
as long-term participants), started pushing a technically
unviable idea and justifying it on the basis of his or her
company's market position.  In such a situation, if more gentle
means seemed ineffective, a little public berating --I'd hope of
the "represented" company more than the individual-- would be
regretable but perhaps quite justified.

Note that many of the elements associated with much of the
recent discussion of "newcomer" are not present in the scenario
above.  The offender is assumed to come from an organization
that has a long history with IETF.  He or she is presumed to
have organizational colleagues who know better.  Gentle hints
have presumably failed. 

I, and even the most self-proclaimed hard-nosed people I've seen
in the IETF leadership, are usually extremely tolerant and
supportive of newcomers who are interested in participating in
the IETF and advancing its work, especially those who approach
us without tying up WG meeting time.  The tolerance tends to
become limited only when patience and education fail and to
become exhausted only in the presence of obnoxious behavior by
those who have had ample opportunity to learn/ know better.

Let's not create categories that sweep the cases together.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:03:54 -0600

Ken Hornstein wrote:
...
> have any secret handshakes; I guess I was wrong :-)

Do you seriously imagine we are going to *teach* you the secret handshakes? :-)

But seriously - yes it's hard, and it's probably harder than when I first came
to the IETF in 1992. It's the brightest collection of protocol designers
on earth (I'm not one of them) - it's never going to be an easy club to join.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:08:57 -0800

>True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for

This is simply not true.  Sometimes we take in work that is mature and 
needs only minor changes to satisfy the community.  To characterize this as 
either frequent or rubber stamping is entirely off the mark.

It IS true that development from scratch, within a working group, is highly 
problematic when the group is large and/or the topic complicated.  (Can we 
all say "design by committee".)  That's why the concept of the design team 
is formally acknowledged.

And some folks have noticed that forming the design team and doing an 
initial specification BEFORE chartering the working group can be much more 
efficient.

However the ultimate test of the material in the stamp is whether the 
working group can and does exercise ultimate authority over specifications 
and whether it can and does make changes.  All of my IETF experience says 
that anyone expecting rubber in the stamp is quickly -- and with 
appropriate rudeness -- educated otherwise.

d/

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:30:57 -0500

> have any secret handshakes; I guess I was wrong :-)

Dave slipped up in revealing the existence of secret handshakes, and 
we're not going to tell him about the new one.

As for the rest ... yes, I think new people need to gather a few clues
but it doesn't take many.  I guess the first clue is to realize how much
of your time making real contributions takes.  If you're willing to do
real work I think you're accepted immediately -- especially if your work
is any good :-).

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:38:06 -0800

Ken, et al,

Humor notwithstanding, please note that I said "special", not "secret".

That was quite intentional, and intended to reflect the considerable 
process and culture documentation AND willingness to teach 
them.  (Yeah.  We are and do.)

d/

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:50:47 -0800 (PST)

% It IS true that development from scratch, within a working group, is highly 
% problematic when the group is large and/or the topic complicated.  (Can we 
% all say "design by committee".)  That's why the concept of the design team 
% is formally acknowledged.

	When did this occur?  Certainly after you disbanded the DNS
	WG after it tried to segment into design teams for security,
	large zone support, and dynamic update (ixfr,notify, et.al.)
	I've never seen where the concept of design teams was sanctioned
	but I've not been all that active in IETF politics.

% And some folks have noticed that forming the design team and doing an 
% initial specification BEFORE chartering the working group can be much more 
% efficient.

	It does tend to restrict alternate approaches tho. By the time
	it reaches a WG, its a fait-accompli. (sp?)
 
% However the ultimate test of the material in the stamp is whether the 
% working group can and does exercise ultimate authority over specifications 
% and whether it can and does make changes.  All of my IETF experience says 
% that anyone expecting rubber in the stamp is quickly -- and with 
% appropriate rudeness -- educated otherwise.

	Sometimes true.

% 
% d/
% 
% 
% =-=-=-=-=
% Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
% Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
% Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
% 
% 

-- 
--bill

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:59:32 -0800

At 02:50 PM 12/21/00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>% That's why the concept of the design team is formally acknowledged.
>

Design teams have been formally discussed and sanctioned in IETF process 
documents for at least 5-6 years.

>         it reaches a WG, its a fait-accompli. (sp?)

1.  There is nothing to prevent a competing design team.  Just ask the 
Instant Messaging folks.

2.  Yes, it does provide tactical advantage to the folks that do the 
specification work early.  Come to think of it, though, that is ALWAYS true 
in the IETF and is viewed as a pragmatic strength, not a political maneuver.

d/

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:46:24 -0500

> subject line of this thread is a painfully good example.

uh, my use of the term "bottom feeders" had nothing to do with newbies.

Keith

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:59:48 -0800

> 1.  There is nothing to prevent a competing design team.  Just ask the 

competitive cooperation has been impressively demonstrated in the management
area for the last year or more.

> specification work early.  Come to think of it, though, that is ALWAYS
> true in the IETF and is viewed as a pragmatic strength, not a political
> maneuver.

doing the hard work while others are chatting is a win in much of life.

randy

---

From: "Liz Walter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:17:27 -0700

So there is an intentional culture of the internet???  I knew it...something
more than a :).  Is there truly documentation?
liz walter
Arizona State Museum
Support Systems Analyst

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: December 21, 2000 4:38 PM
To: Ken Hornstein
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Handshakes

Ken, et al,

d/

=-=-=-=-=

---

From: Ofer Inbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:27:22 -0500

I'm not a newcomer, but I don't go to meetings very often.  I joined
the IETF list in 1990 and have participated in some WGs on and off
since then, but in that whole time I think I've attended only 5 IETF
meetings.  So, in the stats the secretariat keeps, I don't know if I
show up as a repeat, especially considering that I've only registered
twice under the same employer, thanks to the plethora of mergers in
our industry :)

When I do attend a meeting, I take the opportunity to visit other WG
sessions I'm interested in.  Often these are topics that I've
participated in in the past, but have had to drop due to limited time,
so I read drafts occasionally and I visit WG sessions when I'm there,
just to keep up and maybe be able to plug back in more easily at some
point in the future when I have time.  I think one of the main
benefits of going to an IETF meeting, as opposed to WG mailing lists
or interim meetings, is exactly that.  Being aware of what's going on
around our own narrow WG interests gives it all a useful context.  And
more than once I've been able to speak up at a session of a WG I
wasn't participating in, and say "hey, are you aware of similar
project X being done in WG Z that seems to relate to what we're
discussing here?"

Because I attend so infrequently, outside of whatever WG I happen to
be participating in at the time, few people recognize me.  So even
though I'm not a newbie, people have no way of knowing that.  I've
found that the IETF is one of the easiest organizations for a new and
unconnected person to be accepted in and taken serious.  Perhaps *the*
easiest.  I often find myself in hallway conversation with chairs and
ADs and protocol authors, who don't seem to think of themselves as any
different from any other IETF attendees, and who will speak with
anyone who has an interesting point to make, whether they know the
person or not.

Sure, there are some barriers, when some people know each other and
other's don't.  But in the IETF, the barriers are at their weakest.
As with all such situations, a lot of the perceived barrier is likely
in the perceiver's head, and in this case, I think that's more true
than in most.  If you *think* there's an old-boy network, and treat
people accordingly, and hesitate to talk, that can be self-fulfilling.
It's easy to percieve a clique where there isn't one, if you're
expecting a clique.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)              --  [email-masked] [email-masked]
  --  Exodus Professional Services  --         http://www.exodus.net/
   "We all misuse the net for personal gain, one way or another."
       -- Larry Wall <[email-masked]>