Dave,
> I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more interesting
> this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth pressing on
> several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk better, as well
> as be clear about when and where and how such accommoda
On 30/07/2013 06:18, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
>> send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those
>> summaries generally give folks a good idea
--On Monday, July 29, 2013 01:37 -0400 Brian Haberman
wrote:
>...
> One of the things that I ask the Internet Area chairs to do is
> send in a summary of their WG after each IETF meeting. Those
> summaries generally give folks a good idea of the current
> state of each WG. I post those summar
On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, t.p. wrote:
> I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
> IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if
> your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
> spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'w
Dave
I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if
your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'witty' name seems to me less
than welcoming.
some others.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
>
> From: John Levine [jo...@taugh.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:00 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
> Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87
> Audio
, 2013 6:00 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio
Streaming Info)
In article <8ba59f96-a1de-460f-9a22-f2cd4ce5f...@emc.com> you write:
>I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could prov
At 22:25 28-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's
worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate
such folk better, as well as be clear about when and w
On 7/29/13 7:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> My suggestion is for a 'status' page that gives a brief summary
> about the current state of the working group, ideally listing the
> current, near-term vector of the work -- what's the current focus of
> effort -- and major open issues.
>
> I'l
Hi Dave,
I am not Jari, but I do have an opinion on your thoughts below...
On 7/29/13 1:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth
pressing on several fronts, to see how
On 7/27/2013 11:01 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
It reads rudely when taken out of context. But try reading the whole
paragraph in RFC 3184:
...
Exactly. My experience back when I was a newcomer was that it was
easy enough to ask beginner's questions after the meeting, and obviously
wrong to do so duri
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>>
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
>>>
>>> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."
>>
>> As would I.
>
> Me too, as long as we get whiteboards or flip-ch
On Jul 28, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Even in context is rude. Even when doing it is because of practical
> reasons and for the good use of the scarce meeting time, I think that is
> one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers.
There's a careful line that
Douglas,
Totally agree that a requirement is that F2F and remote are equals.
I even believe that a presentation-less format (as the described) is
better for remote participants.
About the minor changes, perhaps. Not very convinced but it could be.
In the same line, what about to have
On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> That may work as well.
>
> It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
> available.
>
> The important is to have discussion-material available in advance. It
> could be a presentation or a video (
That may work as well.
It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
available.
The important is to have discussion-material available in advance. It
could be a presentation or a video (I would personally prefer a
presentation because I can quickly
Why during the F2F IETF meeting?
It seems that is not a good way to use the time of an AD during the F2F
IETF meeting. I think is a good idea to provide people remote-access to
ADs, but doing it during the F2F IETF meeting does not look like a good
use of resources.
/as
On 7/27
Why not put the presentations up on YouTube as podcasts. That way people
can watch them before starting off for the meeting.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I agree with Randy.
>
> Presentation material, documents, etc. should be available in
> advance
>
I agree with Randy.
Presentation material, documents, etc. should be available in advance
at least 1 or 2 weeks before the IETF (not 2 hours, not 2 days) and to
support the discussion (not to be presented). People in the meeting
should have read it (draft and slides) and be prepar
Even in context is rude. Even when doing it is because of practical
reasons and for the good use of the scarce meeting time, I think that is
one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers.
Regards,
as
On 7/27/13 10:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> > It's not wrong.
>>
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
>
>
Only the topic of the conversation is how to get more people involved in
IETF, not how to make them run away screaming and crying.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
On 28/07/13 01:27, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 3:52 PM, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in your
term that may confuse others on the list. Will appreciate, if you can
share bit more on it, behind the single term "conference" that you
particu
nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, J
As an off-topic note, thanks to Alexa, Alexey, Jari, Lorenzo and the
Meetecho team.
At 16:52 27-07-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in
your term that may confuse others on the list. Will appreciate, if
you can share bit more on it, behin
On Jul 28, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 07/28/2013
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
> a good thing for folk with spare time to do. i am sure we could arrange
> pointer space on the wg's web page.
Effective video presentations are _hard_. Otherwise they're T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moo
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>>
On 7/27/13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly s
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
>>> projectors and screens.
>>
>> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:23 AM,
wrote:
>> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
>> something closer to conferences,
>
> with poster sessions!
And mandatory suit and tie (or women's equivalent business attire) for
presenters and chairs.
Il giorno Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:43:40 +0200
Jari Arkko ha scritto:
> Simon,
>
> > for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five
> > tutorials on Sunday:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
> >
> > We have already provided a URL for those wh
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
>> projectors and screens.
>
> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."
As would I.
Keith
On 7/27/13 8:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
>> something closer to conferences,
> with poster sessions!
A!
Melinda
> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
> something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
> projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."
Melinda
> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
> something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
> accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
> anything particular in mind.
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove th
> I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may include
> implementers.
putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
a
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> > I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> > provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> > This includes newcomers and also interested observer
On 7/27/13 3:52 PM, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
> What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in your
> term that may confuse others on the list. Will appreciate, if you can
> share bit more on it, behind the single term "conference" that you
> particularly don't like.
I love conferenc
On 27/07/13 23:22, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
include impleme
At 14:01 27-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
Let me clarify why I thought it was wrong. I don't think I'm
disagreeing with you,
I'll reorder the end of the original message.
Jari (the guy who is preparing for the possibility - no matter
how remote - that the cool kids might actually teach us a tri
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
> include implementers. Can that be accommodated, m
In article <8ba59f96-a1de-460f-9a22-f2cd4ce5f...@emc.com> you write:
>I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
>video overviews to help people understand the work. This includes newcomers
>and
>also interested observers, who may include implementers. Can th
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
video overviews to help people understand the work. This includes newcomers
and also interested observers, who may include implementers. Can that be
accommodated, maybe at a future meeting? I am happy to help if I
(Dropping a few lists from the distribution.)
Brian, Dave,
> It reads rudely when taken out of context. But try reading the whole
> paragraph in RFC 3184:
>
> IETF participants who attend Working Group meetings read the
> relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and e-mail archives beforehand,
On 28/07/2013 00:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
"newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
> ...
The first quote
On 7/27/13, John C Klensin wrote:
> one locates it (IETF Home Page -> IESG -> Members) one even gets
> contact information as a bonus. And the listing of AD names is
> pretty useless without contact info.
>
As from my remote participant experience in IETF Routing Area (rtg), I
was very happy/enc
Well, actually, the IETF is a continuation of the Network Working Group, which
formed organically in late 1968. We're a few days short of the 45 year mark.
The NWG had open meetings, developed the layered architecture and published
RFCs.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:07 AM
Simon,
> for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five tutorials on
> Sunday:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
>
> We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC
> Overview Session. If you think this might be
Hello Jary and all,
for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five tutorials on
Sunday:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC
Overview Session. If you think this might be
> From: Abdussalam Baryun
> no one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years
The IETF was a renaming of things that existed before the formal first IETF
(in January, 1986). It's a direct descendant of the first 'TCP Working Group'
meeting, held in Washington DC on March 12
On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
"newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
...
The first quote might discourage newcomers from participating. I
suggest dis
At 23:17 26-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
The second quote is valid in most cases, though we've had some
sessions at times that were designed more as education than
discussion. For instance, the IAB WCIT BOF last time.
The following will be discussed in the DMARC BoF:
"a mechanism for protecti
At 15:10 26-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
However, the IETF has been having a lot of discussions about
newcomers, diversity, and attracting new folks to participate
and get work done. I think those populations will be better
served if it is possible for people a lot less experienced than
the tw
On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
>
> I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
> wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
>
> The case for hav
I agree with John that audio and other things would be useful, but Brian is
also correct that they do involve some work. Let us see what we can do on audio
for IETF-88. Past recordings of the tutorials are available at
http://www.ietf.org/edu/process-oriented-tutorials.html#newcomers.
The meeti
Thanks, I agree with your points/suggestions. I want to add;
a) Work/Participation in IETF is remotely to run its daily business.
b) Newcomers (how many we have per meeting); are always welcomed, no
one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years, so some
how could we say participant
On 7/26/13, SM wrote:
>
> The consensus of the IETF is that:
>
>"newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
> observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
> interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
This is bad for IETF, why no interfer from
On 7/26/13, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
> most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
> afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or
> should be) of as much interest to remote participants as to f2f
>
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
The case for having some sort of local name discovery mechanism is clear in
both the e
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 00:37 +0100 Tim Chown
wrote:
>...
> While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be
> better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a
> couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether
> they were aware of certain things, and
On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
> wrote:
>>
>> That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft
>> charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is
>> already agreed.
>
> If there is something to be bashed f
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
wrote:
>...
>> On a similar note, according to its agenda, the core of the
>> DNS-SD Extensions BOF (dnssdext) is apparently
>> draft-lynn-sadnssd-requirements-01. The link from the agenda
>> page [1] yields a 404 error and attempts to look up
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 08:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> And there is a "Training" section in the meeting materials
> page. It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it
> there. All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it.
And to remember that link appears on the main
On 26 Jul 2013, at 21:48, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM
> wrote:
>
>> POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
>> listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
>> this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best C
--On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM
wrote:
> POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
> listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
> this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best Current
> Practices?
On a similar note, according to its agenda,
And there is a "Training" section in the meeting materials page.
It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it there.
All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it.
Regards
Brian
On 27/07/2013 08:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 27/07/2013 03:32, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>>
On 27/07/2013 03:32, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the
> most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday
> afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or
> should be) of as much interest to remote participants as
Hello,
At 08:32 26-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:
[snip]
with subscribing to the 87all list. It should no involve a
treasure hunt at which only very experienced IETF participants
can be expec
70 matches
Mail list logo
