Subject: [edu-team] Regarding the RFC Editor's class

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:35:54 +0200

Hi,

Just wanted to keep the team informed on a discussion that I am  
having with the RFC Editor.  They registered an objection to being  
dropped from the schedule at IETF64.  This is the objection and the  
response (or rather the response and the objection).

a.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
> Date: 1 september 2005 19.30.25 GMT+02:00
> To: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Joyce Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>,  
> [email-masked], Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: RFC Editor's class
>
>
> Hi,
>
> While I would never claim to be wise, I do believe it is the right  
> thing to do.  The Edu team maintains a program of 4 classes per  
> session with rotation between classes - the only exceptions being  
> the Newcomers class which is always offered and the occasional  
> extra Newcomers class held in the host country language, for which  
> we always need to make a special request for a room.  The pattern  
> we have decided to follow is that each class runs for 2 IETFs and  
> then is rotated out.  The RFC editing class has been run the last  
> two sessions and now it is time to offer the WG leadership class  
> again.
>
> Over the years of doing these classes, I have noticed that classes  
> remain fresh and the audiences receptive if we offer a varying  
> program.  It is possible that at some point we may grow the program  
> to 6 classes requiring 3 rooms instead of two and then we would  
> change the pattern - though I would still favor rotation.   I have  
> also had people ask for extra slots for more technical tutorials.   
> But I don't want to do that until I have the agreement of the Edu  
> team and a perception from the IETF community that this is a good  
> idea. I will be putting this on the agenda for discussion at an  
> open Edu team meeting, required by our charter, in Vancouver.  I am  
> also sure there would also be budgetary issues that would need to  
> be approved by those responsible (I assume Ray Pelletier, whom I  
> haven't met, and Brian) once we have the decision to request it.
>
> In doing this scheduling I don't beleive the Edu team is slighting  
> the important work of the RFC editor.  The Edu Team accepted it  
> when the RFC editor wanted to take charge of the editor class we  
> already offered and, out of deference to the person of the RFC  
> Editor, refrained from requiring that the Edu Team review the  
> slides first, as is the practice with all other classes.   I think  
> that given the important role of WG leadership in completing drafts  
> that can be passed to the RFC Editor, it is important that this  
> class be given its place in the rotation.  I hope the RFC Editor  
> will continue being willing to work with the Edu team and will be  
> willing to teach the class again when it is next offered.
>
> thanks
> a.
>
>
>
> On 1 sep 2005, at 18.43, Bob Braden wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, Avri, this comes as a considerable surprise to the RFC  
>> Editor.  Given the
>> importance of our work to the community, and considering the good  
>> reception the class has
>> received during the last two meetings, we must question whether it  
>> is wise to
>> not give it in Vancouver.
>>
>> Bob Braden for the RFC Editor
>>
>>
>> At 12:35 PM 8/31/2005 +0200, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> since we try to rotate the classes and try to do a single class  
>>> twice
>>> before moving it out of the rotation, I do not plan to schedule RFC
>>> Editor's session this time.  I hope that is ok with you.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:24:32 -0400

> > session with rotation between classes -

Why? I'm being serious.

What's wrong with having more parallel sessions, so long as folk are
willing to give them, we think they are appropriate topics, and folk
are willing to attend?

This will become especially more feasible as we have more
presentations and folk willing to give them.

Thomas

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:43:55 +0200

hi,

Personally I have no problem with moving up to 3 rooms, 6 classes.   
but I want to make sure that the Edu Team supports it as a goal since  
it will take more work to organize and to maintain.  And once we are  
sure that we want it, and have enough reason to expect that the  
community will use the extra classes, we will have to make sure we  
can get budget approval for the extra arrangements.

a.

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:25:55 -0700

Actually, I am always surprised by the high percentage of IETF'ers who 
are completely unaware of
our Sunday sessions. Often I hear people bemoan, during IETF, "Gee, I 
didn't know about that
class on Sunday. Too bad I missed it". Or people saying even
before IETF "Oh no! I'm not flying in until Sunday night.
If I'd only known about that class I'd have flown in earlier."

So...is there some way we can advertise these better, and let people 
know they are free, open to
everyone, intended to educate people rather than, for instance, the DNS 
thing being a small group
of DNS experts brainstorming about DNS futures (I talked to someone 
during IETF who thought the
"classes" were actually only for people in that area...in particular,
when someone asked me a question about DNS I said...gee,
you should have gone to the tutorial, and the person
said "but I don't know anything about DNS...would I have understood the 
class? Would I have
been allowed at it?")?

Radia

Avri Doria wrote:

>  and have enough reason to expect that the  community will use the 
> extra classes, we will have to make sure we  can

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:20:39 +0200

The standard text on the web site now says:

"IETF Meetings start Monday morning and run through Friday lunchtime,
with late scheduling changes. Newcomers' training takes place the
previous Sunday afternoon. Participants should plan their travel
accordingly."

If the EDU team wanted, I could ask for this to be changed to read
"Newcomers' training and technical tutorials take place the
previous Sunday afternoon."

But Avri's point about room costs remains. If it becomes a big
issue, we might have to ask for $50 extra for tutorial attendance,
although I would dislike that in principle.

   Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:07:35 -0400

> previous Sunday afternoon."

I think we should.

> although I would dislike that in principle.

Before we spend a lot of time worrying about cost, can someone provide
actual numbers here?

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:13:45 -0500

> Before we spend a lot of time worrying about cost, can someone provide

... and can we try to figure out something clever if cost DOES start to look 
like an issue? It seems wrong for the premier IP forum on earth to 
rate-limit training that participants seem to find useful.

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:01:23 +0200

How about organizing an EDU team conf call where we invite
the IAD to hear what the team's goals and responsibilities are
and what administrative issues and needs it has?

As we split admin stuff from the technical work of the IETF,
we need to define the boundaries, and defining the admin boundary
of EDU seems appropriate at this time (i.e. long enough before
Vancouver).

    Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> ... and can we try to figure out something clever if cost DOES start to 
> look like an issue? It seems wrong for the premier IP forum on earth to

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:08:51 -0400 (EDT)

> of EDU seems appropriate at this time (i.e. long enough before

Great idea.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:28:43 +0200

Hi,

Ok, sounds like a good idea to me too.

the next item of business, therefore is, when?

I am out of range in the Arctic for the rest of this week.  Next week  
would be best for me since I start in on 2 weeks of meetings in  
Geneva the week after.

So to start, can folks make it either Monday (12), Tuesday (13) or  
Wednesday (14).  Sometime in the afternoon EDT, would work for me.

Others?

thanks
a.

On 6 sep 2005, at 17.01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> ... and can we try to figure out something clever if cost DOES  
>> start to look like an issue? It seems wrong for the premier IP  
>> forum on earth to rate-limit training that participants seem to  
>> find useful.
>> Spencer

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:55:35 +0200

Of course once we know if we can make it, I will have to ask the IAD  
if he can make it.  Though it may be good for us to have a call even  
if he can't since we did not manage to meet in Paris.

a.

On 6 sep 2005, at 18.28, Avri Doria wrote:

> I am out of range in the Arctic for the rest of this week.  Next  
> week would be best for me since I start in on 2 weeks of meetings  
> in Geneva the week after.
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:58:59 -0500

> Wednesday (14).  Sometime in the afternoon EDT, would work for me.

I would do best with the 12th or 14th, but 13th is do-able

Spencer

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:39:13 +0200

Hi Avri,

I cannot make a call next week at all, because I will be in Nairobi
teaching at a ccTLD workshop. But please go ahead without me. I don't
think you need me for the topic below. And you know what the status of
the Newsletter is in case you want to have that on the agenda.

Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:39:06 +0200

Hmm. If you do it afternoon EDT you lose me.

    Brian

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:03:47 +0200

> Hmm. If you do it afternoon EDT you lose me.

Oh, i was looking for something outside the normal work day so it  
would not conflict with the work day (I absolutely favor midnight  
meetings since they don't conflict with very much :-).  Currently I  
have meetings booked already for next week (all time EDT AM)

Monday 8-10
Tuesday 8-11
Wednesday 10-12

so anything after

Monday 10
Tuesday 11
Wednesday 12

will work for me, so I guess it is not quite afternoon.

So what times work for other people?

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:24:32 -0400

This makes sense to me.

Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:26:45 -0400

I'm currently free all day on the 12th.

I'll be flying to Atlanta at some point on the 13th and will then be 
at a tradeshow through the 15th, but I might be able to attend one of 
those days if necessary.

Margaret

At 6:28 PM +0200 9/6/05, Avri Doria wrote:
>week would be best for me since I start in on 2 weeks of meetings in 
>Geneva the week after.
>