Subject: [edu-team] Notes from Edu Team Meeting 28 April 2016

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:07:11 +0200

Dear all,

Here are the notes form our meeting on 28 April.

Let me know if I forgot anything.

Mirjam
=======

Edu Team Call, 28 April 2016

Present: Karen, Alice, Alexa, Nalini, Greg, Mirjam

One goal for this call is to give Alexa and Benoit some points to bring
to the IESG’s attention when they meet in a week or so.

1. Mailing list review
- list is quite short
- not very many active members
- we need to find new active members, especially also younger members

Mirjam mentioned that one of the purpose of the BoF in Prague was to
attract new members. Luckily we found Karen and Greg, but we could
definitely use more.

2. Feedback about tutorials

Are we systematically collecting information about the usefulness of the
tutorials?
We started doing some more targeted surveys at the end of each tutorial,
but not recently. Agreed that we want to pick this up again.

We also need to get information out earlier (see some suggestions in
Karen’s notes from 14 April).

Greg said that currently the Edu Team focusses a lot on meetings, but
with the increased number of remote participation, we might want to
re-think the activities of the Edu Team. He also suggested to look at
the activities a bit more from an external point of view: What do people
need and how do we provide that? Maybe best to do this on a separate
call about how to break through that cycle about just organising the
tutorials for next time.

Mirjam agreed and reminds people review action points from the BoF.
Unfortunately due to resources, we always end up focussing on the next
set of tutorials and don’t have time for the larger meta discussion.

3. Coordination with mentoring programme

Alexa invited Nalini to the call, because she thinks that a lot of the
mentoring programme are actually educational activities and should be
better coordinated with the edu team.

Nalini said that it seems the Edu Team is trying to figure out what they
want to do and how to resource their activities. The mentoring team on
the other hand is in a different space and knows exactly what they want
to do in the next four IETFs or so.

Mirjam noted that this seems to be a big change since the BoF in Prague
where at the end the community urged us not to merge the two teams and
instead properly define the activities and the missions a bit more,
especially those for the mentoring programme.

Nalini mentioned that they indeed put a lot of effort into this since
then. She also agreed we need to coordinate our activities more.

Karen added that we should definitely make sure there are no tutorials
provided by other groups (such as the mentoring team) that are not
vetted by the Edu Team (as we are ultimately responsible for these
activities, based on our charter).

It seems that the Mentoring Programme caters for Newcomers only.

The Edu Team has three audiences:
- Newcomers
- Existing IETF participants (provide material to IETF participants to
make their work more productive)
- IETF WG Chairs

We need to clarify roles and responsibilities.

4. Edu Team material

Greg double checked that the Edu Team wants all current material on the
web site and that the rest can be archived.

ACTION: Edu Team to look at the various materials and web pages that
contain educational material and to clean this up (wiki, data tracker,
main web site etc.). This might require a separate call.

5. Tutorials for IETF 96

We need to discuss this on the mailing list. Mirjam will send options.

Nalini is planning to offer two tutorials for IETF 96 (same as last time):
- Journey from I-D to RFC (Fred Baker)
  (what’s the overlap with Document Life Cycle tutorial?)
- Culture of the IETF (Nalini)

Alice said that she reviewed Fred’s tutorial and there isn’t much
overlap with the Document Life Cycle. It is mostly based on Fred’s own
experiences. Alice will send some suggestions on how to choose different
titles. Nalini will also think about renaming Fred’s tutorial.

Nalini mentioned the draft on “IETF unwritten rules”. She posted it to
the IETF mailing list and received many positive comments. Believes
there is support from the community. One concern about this document
might be that this only represents one person’s opinion. That’s why
Nalini posted it to the list she said. The intent was to help people to
find their way around the IETF and how to move their I-Ds forward.

6. Specific input for the IESG

Mirjam said it would be good to hear from the IESG what they expect from
the Edu Team. How do they want us to reach out to the various audiences?
What audiences? etc.?

Alice suggested framing a question to the IESG as "what topics are on
the horizon that you think the EDU team should cover?" What comes to
mind are xml2rfc v3 format and a follow-on to the 95 WG chairs training
(e.g., a how-to on remote presenting).

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:55:20 +0000 (UTC)

Mirjam,
Thanks for doing this.   As always, it is excellent. One comment about the mentoring tutorials, as I recall, I asked the EDU team at least twice if they had any comments on the tutorials that we were about to do BEFORE we did them. 
There was no response from any one at EDU.  I believe you sent out a note as well.  I am sure I can find the email threads.
Thanks,
Nalini
      From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
 To: EDU Team <[email-masked]> 
 Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 1:07 AM
 Subject: [edu-team] Notes from Edu Team Meeting 28 April 2016
   
Dear all,

Mirjam
=======

1. Mailing list review
- list is quite short

4. Edu Team material

5. Tutorials for IETF 96

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