Subject: [edu-team] Proposal for WG Chairs' Lunch in Vancouver

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:12:24 -0400

HI All,

I have a set of ideas for the WG chairs lunch in Vancouver...

I thought it would be useful to have David Meyer present on the 
before/after requirements for holding a WG meeting (agenda, minutes, 
etc.).  He wrote an I-D on this topic which is currently expired, but 
could be revived for use as a reference:

http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-meyer-wg-post-meeting/

I also thought that it would be useful to offer some further training 
on the agenda/proceedings submission tools, and to allow the WG 
chairs to provide feedback on them.  Barbara and Michael demoed these 
tools last time, so I thought that a more free-form discussion would 
be good this time and I thought it would make sense to ask Allison to 
lead it.

What do you guys think?  I've spoken with Dave and Allison, and they 
are willing.

If you like the idea, I'll put together a formal agenda with 
references, etc. and get it out to the WG chairs early next week.

Thanks,
Margaret

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

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:36:09 -0400

Hi,

I think this is a good plan.  I would like to recommend that Dave  
also mention the role of the secretary as this one the one requested  
topic I go from the WG Chairs group.

Also I would like to request that when the signup message goes out,  
the Edu Team be copied.  This will prevent me becoming the bottleneck  
for passing on the invitation to attend.

thanks
a.

On 13 okt 2005, at 08.12, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> before/after requirements for holding a WG meeting (agenda,  
> minutes, etc.).  He wrote an I-D on this topic which is currently  
> expired, but could be revived for use as a reference:
>
> I also thought that it would be useful to offer some further  
> training on the agenda/proceedings submission tools, and to allow  
> the WG chairs to provide feedback on them.  Barbara and Michael  
> demoed these tools last time, so I thought that a more free-form  
> discussion would be good this time and I thought it would make  
> sense to ask Allison to lead it.
>
> What do you guys think?  I've spoken with Dave and Allison, and  
> they are willing.
>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:03:25 -0400

> I have a set of ideas for the WG chairs lunch in Vancouver...

These seem good to me.

More general question. For stuff mentioned in your note, IMO, _all_
wgchairs should be up-to-speed on these issues.

Do we have any sense for what percentage of the WG chairs have been
attending WG Chairs lunches and other sessions? One worry that I have
is that while we may be reaching _some_ of the chairs, are we really
reaching enough of them? And in particular, there may be chairs that
really need to do more of these sorts of things, but aren't going to
these sessions, and hence, the status quo continues...

Do we have any way for evaluating how much (if at all) this is a
problem?

Thomas

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:58:48 -0700

Sure.

            jak

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:54:13 +0200

>>I have a set of ideas for the WG chairs lunch in Vancouver...

agreed

> attending WG Chairs lunches and other sessions? 

I've asked that question and unfortunately it would mean taking
attendance for 3 or 4 meetings to get a significant measurement.
I think somebody was going to at least get the RSVPs from Marcia
to make a first estimate.

My impression is that we have a fair fraction of chairs who
never show up, and they are most likely the ones most in need
of training. But we need data.

     Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:44:52 -0400

Hi Brian,

>to make a first estimate.

People wanted a list of _who_ actually attends, which we had not been 
maintaining.

I do know how many people attend each session, and it has (for many 
meetings) been equal to the number of spaces that we have available 
in the room.  This is typically ~60 people, but has been as low as 45 
at smaller facilities.  Although we typically do fill a room with ~60 
seats, we do not have to turn away many people...  We might get as 
many as 70 if we had space.  This includes ~10 people who aren't WG 
chairs.

There are about 200 individual WG chairs, so we are probably reaching 
about 1/4 of them.  Interestingly, we get a much higher turn-out at 
our training lunches than we have typically had a WG chairs social 
functions.  Most of the same chairs do return for subsequent sessions.

Margaret