Subject: Re: Mentoring

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:30:15 +0000

Mary,

I need to check but...

> [MB]  What I find interesting is that there was 200+ newcomers, but I
> certainly didn't find that many at the meet and greet.  I have to
> wonder whether this doesn't have to do with the overlap between Sunday
> tutorials and this event.  I think that needs to be fixed.

Very right that it would need to be fixed, but I thought that it was avoided explicitly and 
deliberately. Anyone got a copy of the agenda in front of them?

Maybe we could do a little research on why newcomers don't show at this meeting. Are they tired? 
Shy? Unaware? Not perceiving the value?

Adrian

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:34:12 -0500

> deliberately. Anyone got a copy of the agenda in front of them?
[MB]
Sunday:

1500-1650  Introduction to RAI Development in the IETF Tutorial - Caribbean 5
1500-1650  IAOC Overview Session - Caribbean 6
1600-1700  Newcomers' Meet and Greet (open to Newcomers and WG chairs
only) - Boca Patio

So, if newcomers want to attend either of the 2nd sessions, they miss
the meet and greet.  In particular, since they are now scheduling
these Intros to Area X during that 2nd slot.  It makes no sense to me.
 I pinged Radia and there was some discussion on the edu list as to
how to work around this - perhaps shortening the tutorials a tad and
maybe starting a tad earlier.

[/MB]

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:35:06 +0100

All,

This is the agenda for Sunday:

1000-1200 EDT	 IEPG Meeting - Caribbean 4
1100-1900 EDT	 IETF Registration - Caribbean Registration
1300-1450 EDT	 IEEE 802.1Q - Caribbean 5
1300-1450 EDT	 Newcomers' Orientation - Caribbean 4
1500-1650 EDT	 IAOC Overview Session - Caribbean 6
1500-1650 EDT	 Introduction to RAI Development in the IETF Tutorial - 
Caribbean 5
1500-1650 EDT	 WG Leadership - Caribbean 4
1600-1700 EDT	 Newcomers' Meet and Greet (open to Newcomers and WG 
chairs only) - Boca Patio
1700-1900 EDT	 Welcome Reception - Grand Sierra D

That overlap does not seem serious.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:37:17 -0500

> deliberately. Anyone got a copy of the agenda in front of them?

The second slot for tutorials is listed as 1500-1650. The newcomer's gig 
is listed as 1600-1700. So, conflicting.

> Shy? Unaware? Not perceiving the value?

I've been supported by an IETF sponsor who has sent a heck of a lot of 
new attendees to the IETF since 2005. One point that's come up 
repeatedly is that people show up on Sunday afternoon and evening 
because the "real IETF meeting" starts Monday morning.

Some of the newcomers are likely still at the airport during the 
newcomer's meet and greet.

Spencer

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:39:02 -0500

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 1600-1700 EDT    Newcomers' Meet and Greet (open to Newcomers and WG chairs
> only) - Boca Patio
[MB] I consider the overlap significant.  Either the new comers need
to skip the 2nd tutorial or walk out halfway through.  I would think a
large percentage of newcomers would want to attend tutorials about the
Areas.  And, having WG leadership means new WG chairs can't attend the
meet and greet.  [/MB]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:41:43 -0500

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> The second slot for tutorials is listed as 1500-1650. The newcomer's gig is
> listed as 1600-1700. So, conflicting.
>
>
> I've been supported by an IETF sponsor who has sent a heck of a lot of new
> attendees to the IETF since 2005. One point that's come up repeatedly is
> that people show up on Sunday afternoon and evening because the "real IETF
> meeting" starts Monday morning.
>
> Some of the newcomers are likely still at the airport during the newcomer's
> meet and greet.
[MB] It would be interesting to know then how many newcomers check in
on Sunday versus Monday morning. Maybe we could move the Meet 'n Greet
til later in the week (maybe Wed. pm in place of WG chairs event ?).
That would allow the newcomers to attend WG sessions and perhaps have
a lot more questions to ask after they've seen a bit about how things
work. [/MB]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:41:09 -0400

--On Thursday, 14 March, 2013 07:41 -0500 Mary Barnes
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> [MB] It would be interesting to know then how many newcomers
> check in on Sunday versus Monday morning. Maybe we could move
> the Meet 'n Greet til later in the week (maybe Wed. pm in
> place of WG chairs event ?). That would allow the newcomers to
> attend WG sessions and perhaps have a lot more questions to
> ask after they've seen a bit about how things work. [/MB]

Even better than my post-reception thought.  If we did that, we
could (and should) try to have some explicit orientation
material available and handed to them with registration
materials.  That would probably be a good idea anyway.
  
   john

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:46:38 +0000

Hi,

I sent the following proposal to Alissa yesterday after she spoke on the mike:

> What if we created an ietf-mentors list that all newcomers were auto-subscribed to. Those of us who want to mentor send a brief description of who they are and what they work on to the list, and the newcomers can approach those folks that sound like they would like to be mentored by. The mentor and newcomer meet at the meet&greet, and the mentors commit to actively trying to helping their mentorees along for at least that first meeting week.
> 
> That doesn't quite solve the issue for very shy newcomers, but it would at least establish some sort of contact.

Lars

---

From: "Pat Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:55:36 +0000

At my first meeting, I wasn't able to arrive on Sunday. At that point, I was mainly following work in one working group that was meeting mid-week. At later meetings, I wasn't a newcomer any more so I never attended a Newcomer meet and greet. That is probably pretty common.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: John C Klensin; IETF-Discussion list; The IESG
Subject: Re: Mentoring

Spencer

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:03:40 +0000

I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can strategically invite a few return attendees (but fewer than newcomers so they don't get crowded out) to establish a connection with the newcomers.   If this became common it would probably require tool work, but what do folks think of the idea in principle?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:05:48 -0400

On 3/14/13 10:03 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to 
> have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required)
> where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can 
> strategically invite a few return attendees (but fewer than
> newcomers so they don't get crowded out) to establish a connection
> with the newcomers.   If this became common it would probably
> require tool work, but what do folks think of the idea in
> principle?

That sounds like a capital idea.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:07:27 +0000

> materials.  That would probably be a good idea anyway.
+1.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:07:54 +0000

I like it a lot!

Starting with IETF-87 I will reserve a breakfast slot for the WG I am co-chairing and invite (in advance, the week before the meeting) the new attendees interested in this WG to attend.

Regards. 

Dan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Ted Lemon
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:04 PM
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: John C Klensin; <[email-masked]>; IETF-Discussion list; The
> IESG
> Subject: Re: Mentoring
> 
> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have
> working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where
> newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can
> strategically invite a few return attendees (but fewer than newcomers so
> they don't get crowded out) to establish a connection with the
> newcomers.   If this became common it would probably require tool work,
> but what do folks think of the idea in principle?

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:13:26 -0500

That's a really good idea!

Mary.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:25:57 +0000

> deliberately. Anyone got a copy of the agenda in front of them?

The EDU team is aware of this issue. Fixing it has ramifications for
various other long-established Sunday events, but hopefully this
can be worked out.

While I'm at it: if anyone has comments on the material at
http://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html, please let me know off-list.

    Brian

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:30:17 +0000

> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can…

There's over 100 working groups, and about 5 slots, because lunch is often busy for WG chairs (*DIR this, and tutorial that, and design team the other). So where would you hold 25 parallel breakfast meetings? How would we ever manage conflicts?

The return attendees you would want to invite would be the leaders in your group, no?  I mean the ones who you'd naturally ask to take minutes, volunteer to edit the new document, etc. They would also tend to be overbooked for such slots (and often they are WG chairs themselves).

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:30:42 -0400

--On Thursday, 14 March, 2013 14:03 +0000 Ted Lemon
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group
> chairs to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP
> required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs
> and chairs can strategically invite a few return attendees
> (but fewer than newcomers so they don't get crowded out) to
> establish a connection with the newcomers.   If this became
> common it would probably require tool work, but what do folks
> think of the idea in principle?

Fine plan if we can put a stop to having breakfast and lunch be
the prime target for assorted management and coordination
meetings.  If I could have accepted every lunch meeting of that
variety that was suggested, this would have been nine lunches in
four days, and that excludes the ISOC presentation and Thursday
talk.  As an IESG member, your schedule is, or will rapidly get,
worse than mine.

I think that, if we wanted to do this in a serious way, we would
ban both the ISOC (usually-Tuesday) presentation and the
Thursday lunch talks and the IESG, IAB (and their various
projects), and IAOC (and their various subcommittees) would need
to stop treating breakfasts and lunches as the target of first
choice.  

I would, however, favor conducting a lottery among, say,
first-year attendees (but not first time unless they qualified
by useful mailing list participation -- see my earlier comment
and Spencer's response)-- and inviting the winners to sit in on
IESG or IAB breakfast meeting, ideally with a mentor who could
explain what is going on when needed.  A similar lottery on the
WG Chairs list or in a leadership training session might be
equally helpful.  It would provide an early and illuminating
view of sausage-making.

   john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:34:40 -0400

On 3/14/13 10:30 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs
>> to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP
>> required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and
>> chairs can strategically invite a few return attendees (but fewer
>> than newcomers so they don't get crowded out) to establish a
>> connection with the newcomers.   If this became common it would
>> probably require tool work, but what do folks think of the idea
>> in principle?
> 
> There's over 100 working groups,

I doubt that all WG chairs will do this, and Ted didn't say it would
be a mandate.

> and about 5 slots, because lunch is often busy for WG chairs (*DIR
> this, and tutorial that, and design team the other). So where would
> you hold 25 parallel breakfast meetings? How would we ever manage
> conflicts?

Informal breakfast get-togethers. Not meetings!

> The return attendees you would want to invite would be the leaders
> in your group, no?  I mean the ones who you'd naturally ask to
> take minutes, volunteer to edit the new document, etc. They would
> also tend to be overbooked for such slots (and often they are WG
> chairs themselves).

Quite possibly.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:37:05 -0400

Possibly attendance at the "newcomers" meeting would be something that
you could do just once but could be deferred to a later meeting you
attend if you miss on the first one for any reasons.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:38:05 -0400

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> writes:
    Ted> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs
    Ted> to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP
    Ted> required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs
    Ted> and chairs can strategically invite a few return attendees (but
    Ted> fewer than newcomers so they don't get crowded out) to
    Ted> establish a connection with the newcomers.  If this became
    Ted> common it would probably require tool work, but what do folks
    Ted> think of the idea in principle?

I like it in principal, but there are only 4 effective breakfasts
and 4 effective lunches.  (Mon,Tue,Wed,Thu).   Given "Side Meetings",
lunch speaking series, WG chair training, and that if your number comes
up for nomcom, you lose all of those... I think that there just isn't
time.

(ps: I've now had the IEEE 802 presentation three times)

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:42:30 -0400

--On Thursday, 14 March, 2013 14:07 +0000 "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I like it a lot!
> 
> Starting with IETF-87 I will reserve a breakfast slot for the
> WG I am co-chairing and invite (in advance, the week before
> the meeting) the new attendees interested in this WG to attend.

Ok, three suggestions:

(1) We should start working, now or next week, on an
informational packet for newcomers.  There should be a link to
it in the registration acknowledgment if someone checks
"first-time attendee" or its equivalent and it should be handed
to the newcomers in paper form when they pick up registration
materials (not put on a table somewhere, or accessed through a
link, but handed to them with their badges).

(2) The online registration materials should say, explicitly and
ideally in response to someone's identifying themselves as a
newcomer, that, if there are particular WGs they are interested
in, they should 

	-- join the WG mailing list immediately, rather than
	waiting for the meeting
	-- send mail to the WG chair(s) or designee introducing
	themselves.

Of course, that requires that we tell them how to do those
things.

(3) I'd like to see a slot on the WG page (charter page maybe)
that identifies the newcomer-welcomer for the WG.  By default,
that ought to be the first-listed WG Chair.  That might provide
lots of incentive for delegation, but that is good too.  The
welcomer might merely be a human mentor-pointer, but that is ok
too.  The point is that every WG should have someone explicitly
responsible for being a newcomer contact point and we shouldn't
automatically stick the WG Chair(s) with the job.

   john

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:43:01 +0000

> There's over 100 working groups, and about 5 slots, because lunch is often busy for WG chairs (*DIR this, and tutorial that, and design team the other). So where would you hold 25 parallel breakfas…

Where we always hold them: in the hotel restaurant.   I'm not suggesting anything more formal than that—I agree that this doesn't scale if you try to have catered meeting rooms for each wg.   The scaling problem for wg chairs is different, because they don't have to go to any meeting but their own.   The question is whether this work is as important as the other business we do over food.   That's up to the various working group chairs to decide; I'm simply proposing that this might not be a bad thing for chairs to consider doing if they think it worthwhile.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:54:20 +0000

> Yoav Nir
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:30 PM
> To: Ted Lemon
> have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where
> There's over 100 working groups, and about 5 slots, because lunch is
> often busy for WG chairs (*DIR this, and tutorial that, and design team
> the other). So where would you hold 25 parallel breakfast meetings? How
> would we ever manage conflicts?
> 
> The return attendees you would want to invite would be the leaders in
> your group, no?  I mean the ones who you'd naturally ask to take
> minutes, volunteer to edit the new document, etc. They would also tend
> to be overbooked for such slots (and often they are WG chairs
> themselves).

Hi Yoav,

I believe that you are over-designing :-) 

I actually believe that we need to leave these as informal as possible, without involving tools or booking meeting rooms. At most use wiki for coordination. A breakfast meeting could just be a meeting around breakfast, in the hotel restaurant or in the IETF breakfast space. This IETF has the lounge space which is wonderful (thanks to the organizers!) - this would be ideal and accommodate 10+ such meetings each mornings. Not all WGs will do this, some of the senior members of the WG will have conflicts but other will be available, and not all newcomers will be available. 

I plan to experiment this at the next IETF meeting with my WG. 

Regards,

Dan

---

From: aservin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:18:59 -0700

On 14-03-2013 06:46, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> What if we created an ietf-mentors list that all newcomers were 
>> auto-subscribed to. Those of us who want to mentor send a brief 
>> description of who they are and what they work on to the list, and the 
>> newcomers can approach those folks that sound like they would like to 
>> be mentored by. The mentor and newcomer meet at the meet&greet, and 
>> the mentors commit to actively trying to helping their mentorees along 
>> for at least that first meeting week.
>>
>> That doesn't quite solve the issue for very shy newcomers, but it 
>> would at least establish some sort of contact.
>
> Lars

I would support such list and I would help.

.as

---

From: aservin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:24:19 -0700

Good idea, but do not constrict it to WG only. Also include people 
from the IAB, IESG, draft authors and some random people.

    Also pick a topic of interest, let the mentors to lead and encourage 
the discussion.

Regards,
as

On 14-03-2013 07:05, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRQdk8AAoJEOoGpJErxa2pPdsQAJUcCGS2AXr782bvWFS4V6gy
> synIw2ElcDa6//lwpYkB4nawsoQS3WE+iZPVIQ+KaAxDSjeTs5oT+DulKGF3N02P
> vujJh1jyeR6xANxkN5l0WMzE3XBlNSmDFKe4V/EJkPsAA0XTRNeN9FhxImS0rMzK
> 2xtZSTHBtjMd2hu+lsSRxTs/KzkX/+whMhJOBgcNIvniueLxQSxgoiatG/4Od7A4
> 8oMOhXuNgADVcChlt+pVamA/ZVqpAyMPpKr8w/wntCTkzeVfmCIhEZEm35L2dp54
> ZDg+QeS9nRg3fcZdtEP4UWMTePxXw/F7Sg92F+c73I9c6gHzUQM7LGbGfBzDr+0C
> 3T3SPf5etLV8PCEtJUZz/90bd7yneqjfIdzTZwWPgkjRiDNn9e8zvjcqgCdGnFVm
> 5l86sdhuZzRXlwTr0Eq89elL2KcjJktW1PALHuoNFDaM7M5YBD+a2gMb0ReRjx5J
> aZygfRDkeWVGAVbQ/niVQO97GZ6Ou6a5+L7iNCKXrLQly7Yr34p3gZGW8HZUfk1A
> uWYo2kGTUkucLTwp6siqxnhvDmbZg/4gPMPnlZqPTGleZMu8jZl6kLEmG5RUi9ES
> ol5Cxf6KNTFZEUHIxN7D0BkgnSh3EXsu2zbC12rrE9Yk2MCV9ACHUvLNP5ktgyYI
> fw3ZyMrt5kniqiX9/XSy
> =3xXJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:31:23 +0000

I personally believe that while strongly recommending to the WG chairs to adopt the concept we should leave the implementation up to each of them without much formalization and process building. Let us not forget that we will have a variety of WGs from large WGs meeting the first time with a lot of new participants to small WGs at their 20th or 40th meeting with a handful of new participants and anything in the middle. 

Let us experiment at the next IETF and get back with reports (can be on the wgchairs list as well).

Regards,

Dan

> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:43 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Ted Lemon; Mary Barnes
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; IETF-Discussion list; The IESG; Shida
> Schubert
> Subject: RE: Mentoring
> 
> 
> 
> > Starting with IETF-87 I will reserve a breakfast slot for the WG I am
> > co-chairing and invite (in advance, the week before the meeting) the
> > new attendees interested in this WG to attend.
> 
> Ok, three suggestions:
> 
> (1) We should start working, now or next week, on an informational
> packet for newcomers.  There should be a link to it in the registration
> acknowledgment if someone checks "first-time attendee" or its equivalent
> and it should be handed to the newcomers in paper form when they pick up
> registration materials (not put on a table somewhere, or accessed
> through a link, but handed to them with their badges).
> 
> (2) The online registration materials should say, explicitly and ideally
> in response to someone's identifying themselves as a newcomer, that, if
> there are particular WGs they are interested in, they should
> 
> Of course, that requires that we tell them how to do those things.
> 
> (3) I'd like to see a slot on the WG page (charter page maybe) that
> identifies the newcomer-welcomer for the WG.  By default, that ought to
> be the first-listed WG Chair.  That might provide lots of incentive for
> delegation, but that is good too.  The welcomer might merely be a human
> mentor-pointer, but that is ok too.  The point is that every WG should
> have someone explicitly responsible for being a newcomer contact point
> and we shouldn't automatically stick the WG Chair(s) with the job.
> 
>    john
>

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:32:50 -0400

Anything along the lines of "mentoring" the virtual world of IETF 
participants? :)

Mr. Klensin, if it wasn't for you, I would of probably lost interest in 
the IETF long ago.  You have reached out and assisted in more ways you 
should be made aware it was very much needed and welcomed. Thank you. I 
was hoping to make Orlando to meet folks such as yourself as well as my 
other virtual IETF peers, but it wasn't in the cards to attend.

--
HLS

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:31:05 +0000

> I personally believe that while strongly recommending to the WG chairs to adopt the concept we should leave the implementation up to each of them without much formalization and process building. Le…

They will need a mechanism for addressing newcomers, unless we think that we can just rely on the working group mailing lists.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:08:16 -0400

These are some cool ideas, and I think we need to try some or all of them.
I'm happy to support a newcomers list if we do that, as well as the
development of the informational packet for newcomers.  I also like the
"billeting" notion; if I were to be paired up with a newcomer, something
like meeting during the breaks at a specific place if that person needs me
would make sense.  If I need to talk to someone else, I can just give that
person the same location.

As for scheduling breakfasts, I agree that this or any kind of outreach is
to be encouraged, but the first concern that came up for me is scheduling
conflicts.  There will be a lot of collisions for the 8am slot, more so
than conflicting working group schedules throughout the day.  So don't
limit it just to breakfast slots prior to your WG meeting.

Then again, I co-chair APPSAWG which is always first thing Monday morning,
leaving us with very few scheduling options for such a thing.

To provide one data point, MAAWG (an messaging working group external to
the IETF) has tried newcomer breakfasts for the last few meetings.  They're
held daily for their three-day conferences.  Feedback on them has been
mostly positive at the beginning of the week but their utility peters off
after that.  My read on the idea based on their experience is that such
events could be quite successful if appropriately structured; they need to
be publicized, and "staffed" by experienced IETFers who span more than just
one or two areas.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:07:46 -0400

>> I personally believe that while strongly recommending to the WG
    >> chairs to adopt the concept we should leave the implementation up
    >> to each of them without much formalization and process
    >> building. Let us not forget that we will have a variety of WGs
    >> from large WGs meeting the first time with a lot of new
    >> participants to small WGs at their 20th or 40th meeting with a
    >> handful of new participants and anything in the middle.

    Ted> They will need a mechanism for addressing newcomers, unless we
    Ted> think that we can just rely on the working group mailing lists.

Let's assume for a moment that we do that.
First, WG chairs can receive a message when people subscribe.  
They can also set some welcome text that go to new users.

If we leverage that part, then we can perhaps build a kind of
FAQ/Checklist for new people.   Given that I also said that I wanted
additional semi-official hats that can be delegated out, the roles of:
	   1) list manager    
	   2) newcomer greeter

come to mind.

As to the newcomer meet and greet... I actually think we got it a bit
backwards.  I think that WG chairs should be uninvited. (as much as I
like free beer).  Rather, I think that the newcomer meet and greet
(and free beer) should follow the newcomer orientation session.

Instead, I think that newcomers need to meet other newcomers.  If they
are going to meet with a mentor/greeter person, then a slot just before
the reception would be good... I'd say just open the reception doors to
newcomers and the mentors 20 minutes early.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:26:05 -0400

I haven't observed that many newcomers at the newcomer meet-and-greet.
They seem to be overwhelmed (numerically) by the ADs+chairs that go, which
is reinforced by ADs+chairs using it as a taking-care-of-business
opportunity as John observed.

So, also along the "much as I like free beer", maybe it should be just the
ADs, unless the number of newcomers that go increases.

-MSK

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:31:26 +0000

Hi,

> ADs, unless the number of newcomers that go increases.

if we do the newcomer-mentor-mailing-list-syncup proposal I described, you could restrict attendance to the beer to mentors that have been chosen by a mentoree... This may also widen the mentor pool.

Lars

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:35:13 -0400

> if we do the newcomer-mentor-mailing-list-syncup proposal I described, you could restrict attendance to the beer to mentors that have been chosen by a mentoree... This may also widen the mentor poo…

After making a statement in the plenary about mentors, I was asked to 
make something happen.  I have been talking to a few people about 
putting together an experimental approach to matching newcomers (not 
just first-timers) and volunteer (non-I* participants) mentors.  Stay 
tuned for more details.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:50:03 -0500

> newcomers and the mentors 20 minutes early.

Wait ... did I understand that you're offering MENTORS free beer before 
everyone (except the newcomers) gets in?

If so, I congratulate you for solving the problem of recruiting mentors!

This will be the biggest disruption in the world of Internet protocols 
since they turned off NCP on Flag Day :p

Spencer

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:40:13 -0400

>>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> As to the newcomer meet and greet... I actually think we got it a
    >> bit backwards.  I think that WG chairs should be uninvited. (as
    >> much as I like free beer).  Rather, I think that the newcomer
    >> meet and greet (and free beer) should follow the newcomer
    >> orientation session.
    >> 
    >> Instead, I think that newcomers need to meet other newcomers.  If
    >> they are going to meet with a mentor/greeter person, then a slot
    >> just before the reception would be good... I'd say just open the
    >> reception doors to newcomers and the mentors 20 minutes early.

    Spencer> Wait ... did I understand that you're offering MENTORS free
    Spencer> beer before everyone (except the newcomers) gets in?

The beer at the reception isn't always free, but yes, that's what I
said.

    Spencer> If so, I congratulate you for solving the problem of
    Spencer> recruiting mentors!

it's because I write so much open source that I understand the power of
free beer.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:42:05 +0200

John,

> meetings.

Yes.

> IESG or IAB breakfast meeting,

Not sure if that should be the winners or losers :-)

Seriously though, I am roughly in the same camp as Seiichi. The real introduction of someone into the IETF is mostly about finding discussion partners around the reason why the person came to the IETF to begin with. Most of the time these would be peers within a working group. Like-minded vendors, customers or researchers. Not everyone who comes to the IETF for the first time is a beginner, they may for instance be established engineers on their fields, and just coming to the IETF to accomplish a goal. We discuss very interesting topics at the IESG and IAB, but I think the more direct way to introduce someone to the IETF "network" is to connect the person with others who work in the same topic. And maybe create some real co-operation between those people, building additional reasons for the person to continue to join our meetings.

Anyway, this is a great thread. Plenty of ideas to consider. Sometime-later-than-Sunday sounds an interesting proposal, so do the WG breakfasts. In any case, scheduling is typically difficult with any approach we take. I also liked the beer motivator idea :-) and ideas about better ways to reach the newcomers. 

As an aside, from personal experience, small, targeted meetings with newcomers have tended to work better for me than otherwise.

Jari

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:44:16 -0300

Not answering any specific email, just establishing position:

- I support a newcomers' list. However, I do believe that the definition
of newcomer must be relaxed a bit. A newcomer is not a 'first time
attendee'. Being a IETF youngster I would say that for the first three
meetings you are a newcomer. This may vary, but if I had to draw a line
somewhere, three would be my choice.

- Breakfasts / lunch meetings are great, but they are not enough. These
slots might need some augmentation. I don't have many ideas except
dinners and parallel slots while the WGs sessions are in progress.

- However tempting, I don't think ADs  / WG chairs are ideal mentoring
choices. During the IETF week they are drenched in work with their "area
directoring"/ "working group chairing" duties and most of them won't
have a lot of time for meeting newcomers and attending to their needs.

- Mentors SHOULD be notified of their duties within reasonable time, and
preferably be introduced to their 'pupils' via private email. I don't
know how hard this would be to implement, but it would definitely help.
Another thing to keep in mind: Do all newcomers want being mentored? I
can think of one or two cases I know personally that probably wouldn't
want a mentor.

- Moving the newcomers reception to later in the week is a MUST. Mentors
should obviously be also invited to this reception.

Warm regards,

~Carlos

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:14:42 -0700

>somewhere, three would be my choice.

I suggest calling the mailing list [email-masked] or else use 
[email-masked].  I don't see any reason why "new" has to be defined.

>dinners and parallel slots while the WGs sessions are in progress.

I suggest increasing the duration of the breaks.  If you formalize a 
lunch meeting, for example, it will be engineered for perfection.  It 
will end up being uninteresting (see Meet-and-Greet thread).

Yes.

>can think of one or two cases I know personally that probably wouldn't

Seiichi Kawamura mentioned that it is about peer environment.  The 
idea of mentorship seems to be about having new people listening 
religiously to old people explaining how things should work.  If the 
IETF thinks that it is a good idea I will opt out as I believe that I 
will be considering people are inferior if I do that.

>should obviously be also invited to this reception.

Murray Kucherawy mentioned that newcomers reception is used to take 
care of business (the people who regularly attend meetings discuss 
about IETF work).

>Not sure if that should be the winners or losers :-)

I don't like the idea of winners and losers.

>Seriously though, I am roughly in the same camp as Seiichi. The real 
>introduction of someone into the IETF is mostly about finding 
>discussion partners around the reason why the person came to the 
>IETF to begin with. Most of the time these would be peers within a 
>working group. Like-minded vendors, customers or researchers. Not 
>everyone who comes to the IETF for the first time is a beginner, 
>they may for instance be established engineers on their fields, and 
>just coming to the IETF to accomplish a goal. We discuss very
>  interesting topics at the IESG and IAB, but I think the more 
> direct way to introduce someone to the IETF "network" is to connect 
> the person with others who work in the same topic. And maybe create 
> some real co-operation between those people, building additional 
> reasons for the person to continue to join our meetings.

Agreed.

>As an aside, from personal experience, small, targeted meetings with 
>newcomers have tended to work better for me than otherwise.

Yes.

I would get rid of the dots.  It seems that the IETF has been 
perpetuating rituals for no reason other than it is tradition (it is 
how things were done before).  I would get rid of the "new attendee" 
tag as it creates different categories of individuals.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. "If your system of finding people to hire, speakers for your 
stage, or members for your board depends on having them step forward 
and ask, you've effectively institutionalized a bias."

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:34:48 -0300

Yes and no.

	I would get rid of all the dots, possible yes.

	The new attendee tag, not sure. May change it for a dot.

	The tags is useful to identify new people and help. A mentor tag or dot
would be useful to people for not thinking that you are a weirdo trying
to make conversation.

	We need to get rid of old traditions if they do not longer apply, but
also we need to subtle identify people willing to help and people that
may need some help.

Regards,
as

On 3/18/13 3:14 PM, SM wrote:
> perpetuating rituals for no reason other than it is tradition (it is how
> things were done before).  I would get rid of the "new attendee" tag as
> it creates different categories of individuals.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:49:37 -0500

> 	I would get rid of all the dots, possible yes.

In general, I like the scope of what's being questioned in the past week 
or so, even if the answer comes back "we talked about this, and the 
other stuff we could think of was worse" :-)

On dots, specifically ... I'm guessing from context that you're thinking 
red/IAB, yellow/IESG, blue/WG chairs, and possibly pink (technically the 
IRSG, but almost all the IRSG members are also RG chairs, so in this 
case, pink is like yellow and blue, mixed together).

There are dots, and then there are dots. The one I'd like to see 
continued the most is the orange dot, for Nomcom members. We choose the 
voting members at random out of a volunteer pool, with some 
qualifications but not a lot, for a specific duration. Perhaps there's 
value in helping the community identify Nomcom members quickly during 
breaks, etc.

For several years, I've scheduled meetings with Nomcom during their 
office hours, but I'm usually providing input on 10-20 willing nominees. 
It might be helpful for someone to chat with a Nomcom member and give 
feedback on one or two willing nominees in just a few minutes - that's 
what I'm talking about.

If the IAOC continues to hold open sessions at future IETF meetings, 
that's good; if not, perhaps there's value in helping the community 
identify IAOC members quickly, too.

For extra credit, picking a color that's easier to identify distinctly 
would help (I can't consistently tell the difference between 
"purple/IAOC member" and "blue/WG Chair" unless someone is wearing both).

IIRC, the green Local Host dots were intended to help people who weren't 
familiar with a meeting site find someone who was familiar with that 
site. Now that we have an IAOC, and attendees lists and meeting wikis, 
and a larger and more visible secretariat, green dots may have more 
value as recognition for meeting sponsors (and if giving out green dots 
matters to people who support the IETF financially, that's certainly 
sufficient as a reason to keep them!).

Just keep thinking carefully, as people are doing, and developing a 
better understanding about what we are doing and why it might have been 
our practice in the past ... and whether it's still a good idea now.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:04:06 -0700

Hi Spencer,
At 13:49 18-03-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>continued the most is the orange dot, for Nomcom members. We choose 
>the voting members at random out of a volunteer pool, with some 
>qualifications but not a lot, for a specific duration. Perhaps 
>there's value in helping the community identify Nomcom members 
>quickly during breaks, etc.

Did you need to look for the NomCom dot to identify NomCom members? :-)

>identify IAOC members quickly, too.

If the community cannot identify these IAOC members quickly it can 
only mean that these members are unknown or known to a selected few 
who have been attending meetings since several years.

>attendees lists and meeting wikis, and a larger and more visible 
>secretariat, green dots may have more value as recognition for 
>meeting sponsors (and if giving out green dots matters to people who 
>support the IETF financially, that's certainly sufficient as a 
>reason to keep them!).

Yes.

>better understanding about what we are doing and why it might have 
>been our practice in the past ... and whether it's still a good idea now.

Agreed.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:10:14 +0100

I wouldn't mind replacing my blue dot with an indication *what* WG I chair, and in which area that is.

Might be a bit more logistics when chairs change, but nothing that can't be solved with a DYMO labelmaker.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:41:06 -0500

> Did you need to look for the NomCom dot to identify NomCom members? :-)

Hi, SM,

Not me, even when I don't recognize half the names of voting members, 
because I "identify NomCom members" by sending a request for an 
interview slot (and I'm remembering that these are 30 minutes long), so 
everyone in the room when I arrive is a NomCom member ;-)

That's OK for people who can provide input on lots of people - I do - 
but doesn't scale for people who just want to provide input on a couple 
of people they've worked with, who are willing nominees for a 
NomCom-selected position. Grabbing someone who has to listen because 
they're chewing a cookie can be enough, sometimes!

Spencer

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:49:56 -0400

> Might be a bit more logistics when chairs change, but nothing that can't be solved with a DYMO labelmaker.

Since I live with a graphic designer, I occasionally think about arranging
for some stickers that convey what areas one follows.  I suspect dinner
conversation at some point will involve trying to figure out appropriate
icons for the different areas.  Routing is the only immediately obvious one
to me.

INT, TSV, OPS and APP may simply suffer from my poor imagination with some
sort of ROYGBIV style 7-layer stack with those groups indicated by their
appropriate place in the hierarchy.  (Although OPS may object to my 
"layer 6" thinking. :-)

Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less controversy than my
unsanctioned badge experiment.

http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg

-- Jeff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:59:27 +0000

> [email-masked].  I don't see any reason why "new" has to be defined.

In my experience, this list is the hallway. edu-team is for logistical
discussions of the EDU team, so I don't think you mean that. edu-discuss
is open to anyone for general discussion of IETF internal education
issues, which is a different topic.

I don't see what's wrong with the word "newcomer"; it isn't pejorative,
and if the list is open to anyone, people can decide for themselves when
they cease to be new. Personally, I'm still learning about the IETF.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:05:50 +0000

> Might be a bit more logistics when chairs change, but nothing that can't be solved with a DYMO labelmaker.

I can only speak for myself, but I find badges hard enough to take
in at a glance even with the current amount of dot clutter. I don't
think that adding more detail is wise, and I think the notion that
"dot = knows what's going on" is simple and useful, even without
decoding the colour.

Heresy: I'm *not* convinced that putting labels on newcomers is such
a good idea, because it has exactly the opposite implication to a dot
of any colour.

   Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:22:46 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]> writes:
    Jeffrey> Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less
    Jeffrey> controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment.

    Jeffrey> http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg

nice.
Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get
an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:08:43 -0400

> an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.

I didn't realize more people hadn't seen the badge.  Since I've gotten a few
inquiries about it, here's the comments I'd had:

- Some people were upset that I was wearing an unofficial badge.  None of
  these were the people involved in giving them out.  (My official badge was
  in my laptop bag just in case.)
- The company logo was definitely too big.  I got the badge the morning
  before I headed out for the conference and it was a bit late to ask Chris
  to alter the design the minimize it.  My preference would have been a bigger
  IETF logo and smaller company logo.  (Or "type treatment" as he'll tell
  me.)  Adding text to the blue dot would have been nice but wasn't thought
  about after the fact.
- The biggest concern expressed by those seeing it was that how could one
  tell that I've actually paid for the conference?  As was pointed out by
  multiple parties, a piece of paper isn't exactly good security if we
  actually cared about that. :-)
- Biggest comment from the people dispensing badges was that it's their job
  to give out the dots.  Since the dot, while removable by design, is part
  of the badge this is somewhat problematic.
- Other comments are that the lanyards are far more of a validation that
  you've been to registration than the piece of paper.
- This badge was apparently responsible for eating an hour of discussion
  during an I* telechat. :-)

The badge is acrylic produced on a laser cutter with custom cut-out vinyl.
A big goal of the badge was to have something where the name was
significantly easier to view from a distance.  However, I have a short name.

I had approached some people in ISOC about the possibility of permanent
badges as a fund raiser during the bits and bytes.  I haven't really
followed up on it yet.

-- Jeff

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:19:58 +0100

> an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.

I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate with the words "protocol police" on it.
Where do I have to apply?

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:06:45 +0200

+1.

in the same application queue :)

Aaron

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:55:36 +0100

I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I
just came from.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Mar 2013 18:48:16 -0000

>I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I

I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next.  And it should
be upside down so I can read it.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:50:32 -0400

>  in my laptop bag just in case.)

There's a long history of "martian" badges at the IETF.  During the Stanford IETF many many years ago, there were something like a dozen "Milo Medin" badges (and I seem to remember at one point Milo was wearing none of them), as well as badges where the older IETF logo had been replaced with various of the Klingon, Federation and Romulan symbols from Star Trek.

>  actually cared about that. :-)

To the best of my knowledge, Beijing was the only IETF meeting that ever had anyone checking badges.  And for the most part, the people who attend, pay.  And if they don't (due to say financial reversals) but still contribute, I'm ok with that.

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:58:38 -0700

> be upside down so I can read it.

And a map so I can get there. With GPS. And real-time traffic data.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:38:00 -0400

>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Barton <[email-masked]> writes:

    Doug> And a map so I can get there. With GPS. And real-time traffic data.

*AND* a count-down until cookies, and a Blood-Glucose indicator, so I
know if I'm allowed to have a cookie.

Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always backwards.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:54:23 -0700 (PDT)

> Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always backwards.

This *is* solvable. We've been using double-sided badges at APRICOT
for years, they look the same flipped or flopped. Of course this would
require (gasp) two sets of dots, I am not sure we have the budget for
that, oh, wait we're getting rid of the dots?

;-)

Ole

---

From: Sumanth Channabasappa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:56:38 +0000

><snip>

While I can't claim that it is 'always' backwards - perhaps a simple(?)
solution is to print the identifying information (whatever is decided) on
both sides? 

[Wait - does that double the number of dots :)? Hmmm...]

- S

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:05:22 +0100

> There's a long history of "martian" badges at the IETF.  During the Stanford IETF many many years ago, there were something like a dozen "Milo Medin" badges (and I seem to remember at one point Mil…

At Cocoa Beach we had 12 Milo Medins.  He wore Tracey's badge, at least
for a while.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:09:41 +0100

> Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always

It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:37:51 -0500

> It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.

Why am I encouraged every time I come across a problem that can be 
solved with duct tape? :-)

Spencer

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Mar 2013 22:37:59 -0000

>It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.

If our t-shirts had pockets, it wouldn't be a problem.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:47:50 -0700 (PDT)

Oh, please, not an T-shirt designed by an IETF working group!

I can just see the list of MUST, SHOULD and MAY have attributes,
and how large is large anyway?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:55:57 +0100

On 3/19/13 4:19 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate with the words
> "protocol police" on it. Where do I have to apply?

If memory serves, HP offered such a badge as Interop "schwag" in the
late '80s.  Another old timer, Erik Fair, actually kept his for a few
years and then wrote a little ditty for RISKS about an email failure due
to mishandling of SMTP.  Protocol police indeed!

Eliot
[1] http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.66.html#subj2

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:07:38 -0500

>> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can…

Hmm. Last I checked there were 10 combined breakfasts and lunches during the week. How many working groups are there?

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:10:02 +0000

> I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have working group breakfast or lunch meetings (RSVP required) where newcomers are invited to come meet the chairs and chairs can…

I'm not opposed to the idea. I do think it could be difficult if there are very many chairs trying to do it at once. In my case, I have work in far too many working groups anyway, and use meals for 1:1 or 1:group meetings, either with friends or with document authors, other chairs, etc. Joel and I in the past, and John and I at IETF 86, set aside "Working Group Chair Office Hours", which we said was targeting authors or design teams that wanted to talk with us. We could update that to also include newcomers.

I also find myself mentoring ISOC Fellows, which are a special case of "newbies". For them, I routinely offer to meet on Sunday morning, as for various reasons (IETF 86 it was where I was coming from, and in Berlin it will be because of where I am going to) I often arrive on Saturday instead of Sunday. As it turned out, I sat in on a briefing ISOC (Steve Conte) did for the ISOC Fellows, and I think the Q&A from a WG Chair perspective was useful for them. It came down to walking them through certain aspects of the data tracker, and it specifically responded to questions they asked.

We already have Scott's tutorial, which is a good one. It might be worthwhile to spruce it up with a review of the data tracker or a Q&A session.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:37:24 -0500

> Hmm. Last I checked there were 10 combined breakfasts and lunches during the week. How many working groups are there?

[Okay, I should learn not to read a long IETF thread in chronological order.]

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:01:15 -0500

> Seriously though, I am roughly in the same camp as Seiichi. The real introduction of someone into the IETF is mostly about finding discussion partners around the reason why the person came to the I…

I quoted Jari's entire paragraph for context, but my comment is in reference to "Not everyone who comes to the IETF for the first time is a beginner, they may for instance be established engineers on their fields, and just coming to the IETF to accomplish a goal. "

This is important. We tend to think of the IETF as a thing. I'm not sure it is, anymore. It's a collection of somewhat related working groups. 

A lot of new attendees I have known, or talked to enough to understand why they are here, came here to get something specific done. They are not newbies in their field, and they don't come here to work in the IETF in general.  Typically this means they are interested in one or two working groups, unless the thing they want to get done spans multiple interdependent groups. (If that's the case, then they've got their work cut out for them unless they are exceptionally good at organizing strangers.) And they have very busy real-world jobs, and are sparing all the time they can just to make it to a couple of working groups. I expect they are quite bemused when (and if) they sit through a plenary open mike session, when we all go on about the IETF in general.

A few of these people will stay around and become leaders in their area of interest, and maybe the IETF in general. Most won't. And that's probably okay--or at least the best we can expect.

I think this means we should closely consider the goals of a mentoring effort. Is it to help them navigate the IETF structure, personalities, and immune system to get something done? Is it to help them become the next generation of IETF leaders? I suspect those two goals do not lend themselves to the same approach.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:23:37 -0500

> I think this means we should closely consider the goals of a mentoring effort. Is it to help them navigate the IETF structure, personalities, and immune system to get something done? Is it to help…

Yeah, I agree with Ben here.

I'd go further and suggest that helping people get something done is a 
good thing, and at least some of the people who have gotten something 
done are more likely to to hang around, but if people want to be part of 
the next generation of IETF leadership without actually getting 
something done first, encouraging them may not take the IETF to a happy 
place.

Spencer

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:16:12 +0000

There's always some excuse as to why multi-homing is never done properly.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:49:11 +0000

> I can just see the list of MUST, SHOULD and MAY have attributes,

Tsk. RFC 2119 only applies to interoperability requirements, as you well
know.

So unless we're also swapping t-shirts...

---

From: "Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:05:31 +0800

I agree with Brian.

IETF has no king.
If the badge said that somebody is a chair, it may imply that there has a "king".

dot is better !

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:09:12 +0000

On 20/03/2013 01:23, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> I think this means we should closely consider the goals of a mentoring
>> effort. Is it to help them navigate the IETF structure, personalities,
>> and immune system to get something done? Is it to help them become the
>> next generation of IETF leaders? I suspect those two goals do not lend
>> themselves to the same approach.
> 

Correct, we wish to convert successful participants into long-term
participants and future leaders, and the first step is converting new
participants into successful participants [RFC4144].

However, I think an important part of that is ensuring that people
do *not* focus exclusively on a specific target, even if they are
busy people as Ben said.

   Brian

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:42:05 -0500

> do *not* focus exclusively on a specific target, even if they are

Change the sense of "ensuring" to "encouraging", and I agree. But as worded, that sounds a lot like making it harder for someone to focus on the work they are interested in. I think that's more likely to make people stop coming than making them generalize their work.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:58:48 +0000

> Change the sense of "ensuring" to "encouraging", and I agree. But as worded, that sounds a lot like making it harder for someone to focus on the work they are interested in. I think that's more lik…

Yes, my phrasing was careless. But we really do need to encourage
cross-currents. For me personally, that's one of the main benefits
of the IETF format and it would be sad to be too inward looking.

  Brian

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:04:09 -0400

> Where do I have to apply?

Will increase your meeting fee by ~$45, but here you go…

http://www.visualbadge.com/BuildBadge_ViewPic2.aspx?badge=FB46&base=silver&textfont=block&textcolor=black&text1=I.E.T.F&text2=PROTOCOL&text3=&text4=POLICE&text5=BCP38&text6=&seal=C998M&textsep=NONE&aff=A128&back=&finish=NICKEL+ELECTROPLATE&qtyb=1&etype=SOFT+(REGULAR)&att=BADGE+ONLY+(PIN+BACK)&sh=CURVED&specins=&price=39.50&l=&pricel=&qtyl=0&textsep=NONE&bsize=Dimensions+(w+x+h)%3a+++++1.25''+X+1.75''&limpr=-LEAVE+BLANK-&centertype=MULTI+COLOR

W

--
"Go on, prove me wrong. Destroy the fabric of the universe. See if I care."  -- Terry Prachett

---

From: Erik Fair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:08:07 -0700

I think you mean this one:

I keep it in my desk drawer because it amuses me - it's a cute piece of schwag. The RISKS digest E-mail Eliot refers to can be found: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.66.html#subj2

One cute coincidence: some time after writing that "Dragnet" themed E-mail (I was very tired and punchy when I wrote it), I saw an episode of Dragnet on TV; the end-credits of the show are shown with Joe Friday's LAPD badge as a background. His badge number? 714. Apple Computer's AS number? 714 …

	Erik <[email-masked]>