Subject: [edu-team] WG Chairs Training Atlanta

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:15:02 +0100

Hi,

Have you picked a topic yet?

Viewing recent behavior by a couple of chairs that really should know better,
some training on how to handle liaisons with other bodies would be really
helpful.

I would be happy to help with slides, but I suspect someone from the IAB should
present (hence copied to Spencer and Ross who, I think, lead the IAB liaison
programme).

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:17:51 -0700

That seems like a good topic.  Are you volunteering to give the talk,
or just to do the slides?

Radia

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:21:14 +0100

I would be happy (for some definition of happy) to do the slides and lead the
discussion. 

However, I am conscious that the IAB owns the external liaison relationships. Of
course, the processes are all documented in RFCs, so describing the processes is
presumably in scope for anyone.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radia Perlman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 12 September 2012 00:18
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [edu-team] WG Chairs Training Atlanta
>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:29:41 -0700

Another topic that might be nice to cover is the "Note well" thing.
Exactly what does it mean?  There are RFCs, and perhaps questions like
the following are covered if one carefully reads the RFCs, but I know
I'm confused by it, and when I ask other people, they are as well.
Questions like (off the top of my head):
a) does a filed but not yet published patent count?
b) does something you are planning on filing a patent on count?
c) should a WG chair remind the WG, when choosing options, that they
might want to try to avoid things that are RAND vs free vs not
patented at all?
d) if you've been participating in a WG and then the topic moves to
something you know about IPR on, if you just keep quiet at that point
do you have to divulge?

Maybe this could be covered in Newcomer's?  (maybe it already is?)

Radia

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:39:07 +0100

I believe we cannot refresh the note well message to chairs and others
repeatedly.

If you want a presentation on that, I have one on the shelf (that Paul Hoffman
said was the best he had ever seen, but he doesn't get out much;-)

A

> Sent: 12 September 2012 00:30
> To: [email-masked]
> > course, the processes are all documented in RFCs, so describing the
processes
> is

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:54:56 -0700

> However, I am conscious that the IAB owns the external liaison
> relationships. Of course, the processes are all documented in RFCs,
> so describing the processes is presumably in scope for anyone.

IMO, any liaison presentation should be done jointly with folk that
have experience out in the field, i.e., from the IESG/WG/liaison.

While it is the IAB sets up liaisons and has responsibility, it's the
operational aspects that are at issue (I suspect) that warrant
discussion. The IAB (in my experience) is not generally in the loop on
these issues.

Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:44 +0100

> Maybe this could be covered in Newcomer's?  (maybe it already is?)

It is, but a couple of slides (maybe from Scott Bradner) on the WG
Chair's reponsibilities would surely be useful, along with the rest of
"what is the Note Well all about?". I'm sure Adrian could do an excellent
job.

I agree that a few slides on liaisons would also be useful. Again, Scott
would be a suitable speaker IMHO.

    Brian

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:39:30 -0700

Brian, when you answered my comment about "Note Well" where I asked
"should this be included in Newcomer's? Is it already" with

> would be a suitable speaker IMHO.

were you referring to beefing up the Newcomer's talk with more
information on Note Well and what/why is a liaison, or were you
talking about content for the WG chairs lunch?

Radia

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> do you have to divulge?> It is, but a couple of slides (maybe from Scott Bradner) on the WG

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:01:29 +0100

Radia, I was thinking of the WGC lunch - specifically, what's the
best way for chairs to ensure people actually do Note it well!

   Brian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:08:17 +0100

We could additionally/alternatively get Sean or Tim to talk about RFC 6702 (and I can talk about 6701).

So much choice :-)

A

> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 12 September 2012 20:01
> To: Radia Perlman
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> relationships. Of
> processes is