I agree that this is not just for the formal leaders. But mentoring is also not for everyone. I would guess that WG chairs, IAB and IESG members are more likely to know who would be good mentors for a particular group or area. Eugene Terrell would not be a good mentor, despite having authored 16 drafts. Even ignoring such extreme examples, not everyone is good at teaching others. While the socially-inept stereotype does not fit engineers in general, and fits this community even less, there are some of us who are like that, and would not make good mentors. But I think a combination of self-selection and WG chair and IESG prodding can lead to a large enough group of mentors. I intend to send to the mailing lists of my groups a message asking "who on this list is going to attend an IETF meeting or <groupname> meeting for the first time in Berlin. Please email me or <other chair> directly." Then if we get any replies, we can set up a get-together with those people before the actual session. If it's more than 1 or 2, we can get some other people we consider leaders to come as well. We can use such a get-together to talk to them about what they're interested in, and to ask them if they'd like to be considered the next time we're looking for an editor. On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Along the thread there have been great ideas on how to do mentoring to > newcomers; I just want to point out something. > > Mentoring is not only about WG chairs, IAB and IESG, it seems to me > that we want to pass the problem to them. My opinion is that anyone that > has come to the IETF three or more times, has written a draft (even > though it never became an RFC), has sent comments or review and I+D, has > gone to the mic or any combination of it could become a good mentor. > > So, please take mentoring as an activity for each one of us interested > in help new people get involved in the IETF and not just pass the > problem to our leaders. > > Cheers, > as > > P.D. Not replying to any comment in particular. > > On 13/03/2013 23:23, John C Klensin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Two suggestions that seemed easier to send in email than to >> stand in the mic line that I'd encourage people to think about... >> >> (1) I've found the Newcomer's Meet-and-Greet very useful in >> finding newcomers I want to keep and eye on and try to help move >> along and my personal instincts are to go for diversity in those >> decisions. But those sessions are open only to WG Chairs and >> IAB and IESG members --people who tend to be among the more >> overextended in terms of schedules-- in addition to the >> newcomers. So those sessions are more useful for giving >> newcomers an opportunity to meet relevant WG Chairs (for >> example) than for setting up any sort of mentoring relationship. >> It may be worth thinking a bit about some other ways of >> establishing relevant contacts, perhaps (as is done with ISOC >> IETF Fellows) even getting those relationships in place before >> the newcomer shows up. >> >> (2) This applies to leadership development as well as to the >> diversity and mentoring issues in particular, but the focus on >> WG Chairs and I* members tends to exclude and underutilize what >> should be an important resource. There are a bunch of people >> around who have retired from formal leadership positions (and >> who are trying to stay retired). At least in principle, we have >> more flexible time than, e.g., an IESG member. We should be >> available for mentoring -- it is probably the most important >> thing we can do. But the system isn't well-organized now to >> utilize us in that way and probably we should be thinking >> together about how to improve that. >> >> john >> >> >> > > Email secured by Check Point