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. Think about it as a stranger to these parts. What comes to mind when you encounter; salud, straw drinks insipid lemonade - behave, kitten vipr, cuss! If we had some way of measuring the success of a working group, I would use it to test my hypothesis that the closer the short-form name is to the subject of a working group, then the more successful that working group will be. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:25 AM > 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 during the session. This remains true years later, if I > >> drop into a WG that I'm not familiar with. > > > > Let me clarify why I thought it was wrong. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, actually. I do agree that asking beginner questions in a working group meeting would be inappropriate. And I agree that the meetings are not a place for education. And I agree that we should not become an organisation where the f2f time gets the primary role. > > > > However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to observe the IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are embarking on. The colleague that has been implementing The Protocol for the last two years in the office, but is now coming to the IETF for the first time. The guy who has something to say about the operational experience of our results. The team who brought their idea to the IETF to be standardised. And so on. > > > Jari (et al) > > 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 > accommodation is /and is not/ appropriate. > > Your reply to me, above, lists different types of new folk -- and of > course the list is reasonable and might be useful -- but I didn't see > the actual clarification of what you felt was wrong in the target text > or how you agreed with me an others. So, now you've got me curious for > that detail... > > > And while I've got the floor I'll offer a thought I had after a brief > conversation with Jari at last night's reception: > > Warning: This calls for working groups to do a little more work. > > The working group home page and the working group wiki have become > excellent tools for assembling relevant documents. For someone trying > to get started in the wg, these are incredibly helpful. > > 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'll suggest that it be updated after every meeting. > > Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without > newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what > progress they are and are not making. > > An exercise like this can be cast as onerous or helpful, depending upon > the surrounding organizational 'tone' we use. In a supportive > environment, the exercise is helpful. In a hostile one, not so much. > > Basically, if a wg is being diligent and candid in summarizing its > problems (as well as progress) the rest of us have an obligation to be > helpful. > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >