Subject: [edu-team] Fwd: IETF Journal at cruising speed

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:40:11 -0400

Hi,

Brian has distributed a first draft of a charter for the IETF Report.

I have forwarded it for your comment.  One question I have for the  
Edu team:  do you believe that the team should have a formal role in  
the IETF Report, or are we ok with having it be a separate Joint IETF/ 
ISOC activity.

Thanks
a.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Date: 12 oktober 2005 09.38.45 EDT
> To: Peter Godwin <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>, "Lynn St.Amour"  
> <[email-masked]>, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>, Avri Doria  
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: IETF Journal at cruising speed
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> I think the practical question is who should draft the charter
>> for the Journal going forward.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I figured that one out. Here's a draft. I see this as
> a somewhat autonomous vehicle - not controlled by ISOC, and
> not speaking formally for the IETF - and that's how this is
> written. I'm very open to alternative suggestions on how
> the editorial board should be formed.
>
> Avri, you're welcome to add the EDU team to this thread, or
> not, as you prefer.
>
>      Brian
>
>

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:46:24 -0400

Charter looks close to what is needed, IMO.

I also agree EDU should not be involved in this going forward. I.e.,
EDU should be focusing inward (towards IETF WGs and participants and
improving IETF practices via education) whereas I view the Journal as
more outward looking and not really being focussed on IETF internal
operations/practice.

Thomas

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:26:53 -0400

Hi,

I essentially disagree.  While I don't think it is necessary for the  
Edu to be involved in the IETF report, I think it is appropriate.

- Edu is not just internally directed.  We are part of the solution  
to the opaqueness of the IETF perceived by outsiders and newcomers  
(and some not so newcomers).  Not only do we offer the classes for  
any participant, including the casual tourist who wants find out what  
the IETF is about, but we put them on a public website to be  
available as a public educational offering.  Addtionally we do not  
require that one be a paying participant in the IETF meeting to  
participate, i.e we are open to educating anyone who is interested,  
including someone who just happens by.

- The IETF newsletter, and I believe ISOC's interest in it, is its  
educational value, we want to educate the ISOC community on what is  
going on in the IETF.  If it were an official sheet on the policy  
decsions of I* then I might agree that Edu had no role as we do not  
have any policy making role.  But since it educational, i believe we  
should have a role, both an editorial board role and a contributing  
role.

I think it was this sort of reasoning that led to the initial idea of  
this being a joint project between the IETF Edu Team and ISOC's  
educational function.  I think the reasoning still holds.

a.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:22:20 -0400

> - Edu is not just internally directed.

Hmm. I'd suggest that a review (and update?) of our charter is in
order then.

http://edu.ietf.org/charter

Thomas

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:01:01 -0400

Hi,

I would argue that:

> The Education (EDU) Team manages the internal education efforts of  
> the IETF, primarily focused on role and process education for IETF  
> participants and leaders.

- managing the internal education does not preclude outreach through  
ISOC, i.e 'not just internally' does not necessarily disagree with this.
- not sure how we define the inside and outside of the IETF.  are  
ISOC members outside?
- is a first time participant sitting in a newcomers meeting, even  
before picking up her badge or paying her fee, inside or outside, or  
somewhere in between.
- and while the work is primarily focused on IETF  participants and  
leaders, 'primarily' indicates to me that there may be a  
'secondarily' which would necessarily be other to the internal.
- i would contend that adding the charter item about the ISOC  
newsletter was a recognition of a possible outreach objective.

- finally, and this is an opinion not related to the charter per se,  
I beleive the work of the Edu team an important vehicle of outreach  
to try and dispel the opacity with which the IETF is often charged -  
ie. that we are open, but only to those who are in the know.  Edu is  
one vehicle by which an outsider starts on the journey to becoming an  
insider.

Of course, a review of the charter, especially in the changing  
environment of the IETF where Teams have no real organizational  
identity is always a good idea.  Personally I think all charters  
should be reviewed yearly, and especially after becoming the purview  
of a new AD.  I think that doing this after the required yearly open  
review session in Vancouver would be a good thing to do, assuming the  
IESG is interested in doing so and has the cycles.

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:27:59 +0200

> http://edu.ietf.org/charter

(After also reading Avri's comments)

I agreee on the desirability of a charter review and with doing it
after the session in Vancouver. I probably agree more with Thomas than
Avri on the scope question, but I'd like to hear from the whole
team. My reasoning is that the internal training effort is important
and big enough in itself to fully occupy a team.

     Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:31:02 -0400

>  My reasoning is that the internal training effort is important

This is also where I'm coming from. Moreover, I think our
inward-looking stuff is critically important to getting the IETF to
work better, and I worry that broadening our scope could dilute its
focus.

Thomas