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 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… The wrong part in the text was suggesting that newcomers should never speak up in meetings. I believe they in many cases should, although beginner or tutorial questions should not be asked. > 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. I like this. Jari