Subject: Re: [edu-team] How to get a draft passed / How to be a good contributor

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0530

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Nalini Elkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:
[Snipped]
>>>I was thinking that being a "good contributor" involves listening skills,
>>> getting and giving feedback & active involvement in a team.
>
>>Absolutely.
>
>>> I don't know that these fall into Mentoring - but I suspect they DO fall
>>> into EDU, if you agree.
>
>>I would say that they fall into both. However, some aspects are generic
>> rather than specific to the IETF; we (neither mentors nor EDU) can
>> substitute ourselves for basic training.
>
> Yes.   But, specifically the way that feedback is given / gotten is somewhat
> unique to the IETF.  At a large corporation that I worked for which also
> worked by consensus (not rough!), they did a lot of work with us on personal
> skills.   Consensus is very good but it can be hard to pull off - easier,
> actually in engineering, if you pay attention to facts.   That is, if you
> can show that your technical solution actually works.
>
> What would you guys think of the idea of small groups (10 or less) watching
> either the videos you put together or a presentation (doesn't matter too
> much), moderated by 2 -3 highly respected IETFers (mentors!)?   Followed by
> a discussion of what it all actually means.   I am thinking specifically of
> the "How to get a draft passed" set of topics.  Scott will have short videos
> that we can use soon hopefully.   Also think that attendance should be open
> to all - with priority given to people by number of meeting attended.
>
> Rgds
>     Brian

+1 for the small groups training. I find that there a few patterns that I have
observed when people first come to the IETF.

1. They have a "boil the ocean" draft (sorry for being dramatic) which can be
divided into small parts and work can done incrementally on the
different drafts.
One draft does stall the whole process. I found this small insight for
example to be
incredibly useful to get work done. I see a bunch of new work falling
into this trap.
Also it is easier to give feedback on smaller chunks as compared to a
large chunks.

2. Also a lot of people get rebuffed by really good but direct feedback. I have
mentioned this before. This is something I *absolutely* love about the IETF but
is also jarring at first contact. Sensitizing newcomers to this would be
helpful.

3. Discussing prcoess like *Hums* for approval/disapproval are important. They
allow people to give *anonymous* feedback as compared to raising of hands.
This is something unique to IETF culture where people can often
collaborate *and* compete in the space of a few hours. And people often speak
for themselves and not always toe their employer's line. This is different from
other conferences.

Thanks
Vinayak