Subject: [edu-team] in lieu of meeting

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:55:10 -0400

Hi,

Since not enough people were available for the meeting, we need to  
take care of business on line again.

i had three things on my agenda:

> - planning for the yearly Edu Team open meeting
> - planning for the next edition of the newsletter
> - WG chairs session planning
> - update any updated presentations

1. I assume that an agenda for the Open meeting would include:

    - report on what go done this year
    - report on plans for next year
    - open mike

    Is there anything else?
    Also, does anyone want to make any of these presentations?
    (note: there is an off chance that i may decide to skip this meeting
           due to personal issues and conflicts - if that happens  
someone
           else would need to chair - so figured i would look for  
presenters
           even in the chance that i do attend the meeting)

2. On the newsletter

    I have been informed that there is a conversation going on  
between the IAB chair, IETF chair and ISOC chair on the future of the  
newsletter.  It has also been indicated that perhaps this is not an  
area the Edu team should continue to be involved in, as it is not,  
properly speaking, an educational activity.

So for now, i think we should step back from planning the next issue  
until the powers that be make their decision about its future.  Of  
course we can discuss this issue and discuss whether we want to make  
any statement to those discussing the issue about whether the Edu  
Team thinks the activity is appropriate for the Team and whether we  
want a continuing role.

3. WG chairs training session

I only received one private reply to my question to the WG chairs group:

> Was just talking with Stewart Bryant about the role of a WG  
> Secretary. We
> wondered if this would be something to discuss/work on.
>
> What experience we have. How a WG secretary can help. How to  
> recruit andWas just talking with Stewart Bryant about the role of a  
> WG Secretary. We
> wondered if this would be something to discuss/work on.
>
> What experience we have. How a WG secretary can help. How to  
> recruit and
> manage such a secretary. What we would not give a secretary to do.

so, what do we want to do.  the time for announcing is upon us.

4. updated presentations

I would like to ask anyone who has a updated the content of their  
presentations to send them to the list for comment.  I have asks  
Charlie Kaufman to send a copy of his update.

Note on RFC planning.  It seems that Bob Braden was not happy with  
waiting for IETF65 and has been asking for a slot of his own.  At  
this point I don't think there is much of anything to be done about  
it, either he will get one or he won't.  My inclination is to neither  
support his request not fight it.  If this team thinks i should do  
otherwise, I will follow whichever direction you all believe is right.

On yellow sheets, at the last meeting my impression was that we did  
not decide to ask for them.  Just wanted to be sure before it was too  
late to do so.

thanks

a.

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:49:32 +0200

Just to clarify matters, here's what I wrote to Avri,
Leslie, etc. a day or so ago:

> 1. Personally, I'm very pleased with Vol 1 No 1 of the IETF
> Journal. I think it's a good professional job and well worth
> the effort of sustaining a publication rate of three or four
> issues a year.

[Note -Peter Godwin tells me he has got very positive feedback
so far, so this isn't just my opinion.]

> 2. There's a broader discussion that Leslie and I need to launch.
> The IETF is notoriously bad at, and has no strategy for, public
> communications in general. We don't have a hair-trigger mechanism
> for responding to journalist enquiries (which are always urgent),
> we don't even have a media enquiry pointer on our web site, we are
> rarely proactive in external communications, and we don't actually
> have a context in which the IETF Journal naturally fits.
> 
> Nobody has responsibility for this under any BCP that I'm aware of,
> but the closest is the IAB's chartered responsibility for
> liaisons and ISOC relations and the IETF Chair's "the buck stops
> here" role. So I guess that's why Leslie and I feel responsible.
> 
> 3. My understanding is that the EDU team was set up to arrange
> internal education for IETF participants, and that is what its charter
> is all about, apart from the last paragraph (which predates my
> appointment):
> 
>> Over the next several months, the EDU Team will work with
> 
>> the Internet Society (ISOC) Standards Publications and
>> Resources committee to develop a proposal for a periodic
>> joint publication that will summarize and explain the major
>> activities of the IETF. This proposal will be publicly
>> presented and submitted for IESG review and approval.
> 
> I'm not sure the last sentence has actually been executed,
> but I appreciate the value of a pilot issue in any case.
> 
> However, we do now need a proposed charter for the IETF Journal
> going forward. My view is that this proposed charter needs
> to fit into the broader context (point 2 above) and not
> be squeezed into the EDU team's internal education mission,
> which is very important in itself. I think the EDU team should
> feel proud of having launched the Journal and should grant it
> autonomy, with its own ongoing Editorial Board, with a
> renewal mechanism for that Board, and a reporting line that
> most logically goes to the IAB. (I stress this is personal
> opinion, but IMHO this is in EDU's own best interests.)
> 
> I'll be glad to discuss any of this. I want to stress again
> that I'm very positive about the Journal and I want it
> to flourish.

So, the next step is a draft charter for the Journal and
its Editorial Board. And of course I assume there'll be
Vol 1 No 2 shortly after Vancouver.

     Brian

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:59:30 -0400

> Vol 1 No 2 shortly after Vancouver.

Thank you for posting your email to me.  I did not think I could  
since it was private communication.  Though I do not think I  
misrepresented it.  But perhaps you feel i did.  I must admit I did  
get the impression that you felt this did not belong on our agenda as  
the discussion had moved up the food chain.  If I read more into your  
communications then I should have, please accept my apologies.

At this point I am unclear on how to proceed.

> I think the EDU team should

- Should Edu team and ISOC present a plan to the IESG?  I understand  
that since ISOC was taking the lead with Edu's assistance, that a  
plan was presented to the ISOC board (at least I think it was, I was  
not involved obviously).  Or should some other body be responsible  
for developing and presenting this charter.

> but I appreciate the value of a pilot issue in any case.

No, it wasn't since it looked like it was to be an ISOC activity with  
Edu cooperation.  Personally I thought that ISOC having decided to  
put out a newsletter on IETF activities obviated Edu's requirement to  
write a charter for an IETF activity to do the same.

So, currently standing somewhere between the IESG and ISOC on this  
one, I don't really know what we should be doing.  Should we be  
writing a charter?  Or should we be working with ISOC on their  
newsletter?  Or should we just focus on education with the  
presumption that a newsletter is not an educational activity?

- Should the Edu Team be involving itself in preparation for Vol 1 No  
2?  Or should we be waiting for a charter that determines whether we  
or some other IETF/ISOC entity is empowered to do it.

thanks

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:58:25 +0200

Avri,

Peter Godwin mentioned to me that there was some sort of draft
charter a few months ago that he would look for. Hopefully we
can bootstrap from that and involve EDU as well as Peter, Leslie and
myself in getting to something we can agree on between IETF and
ISOC.

     Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> Thank you for posting your email to me.  I did not think I could  since 
> it was private communication.  Though I do not think I  misrepresented 
> it.  But perhaps you feel i did.  I must admit I did  get the impression 
> that you felt this did not belong on our agenda as  the discussion had 
> moved up the food chain.  If I read more into your  communications then 
> I should have, please accept my apologies.
> 
> that since ISOC was taking the lead with Edu's assistance, that a  plan 
> was presented to the ISOC board (at least I think it was, I was  not 
> involved obviously).  Or should some other body be responsible  for 
> developing and presenting this charter.
> 
> Edu cooperation.  Personally I thought that ISOC having decided to  put 
> out a newsletter on IETF activities obviated Edu's requirement to  write 
> a charter for an IETF activity to do the same.
> 
> So, currently standing somewhere between the IESG and ISOC on this  one, 
> I don't really know what we should be doing.  Should we be  writing a 
> charter?  Or should we be working with ISOC on their  newsletter?  Or 
> should we just focus on education with the  presumption that a 
> newsletter is not an educational activity?
> 
> 2?  Or should we be waiting for a charter that determines whether we  or 
> some other IETF/ISOC entity is empowered to do it.
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:58:17 -0700

Brian,

This sounds like the logical way to go.

I am a little concerned, though, about additional heavyweight mechanism 
being put in place, i.e. an Editorial Board (capital 'E', capital 'B'). I 
don't know what the current average turnaround time is for drafts through 
the RFC Editor's queue but if we end up with a similar, thickly layered 
process for the IETF Journal, it will lose its value of timeliness.

I think it might be simpler and quicker to just have a dedicated IAB member 
or someone from the IAOC do a quick editorial review of the latest 
publication to catch any possible issues that might be cause a problem in 
public perception.

            jak

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:26:47 +0200

I would really like to second James on this point.

> I think it might be simpler and quicker to just have a dedicated IAB 
> member or someone from the IAOC do a quick editorial review of the latest 

My suggestion is that we continue to accept contributions and say stuff like 
"this is only Geoff Huston's silly opinion about routing, if you disagree, 
please feel free to write the summary for IETF 64" at the bottom of every 
article.

If that is wrong, we'll know it pretty quickly, but this stuff has the 
greatest benefit if it's published days, not months, after the event.

Spencer

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:43:50 -0400

Hi,

i work on on one editorial board with yet another technical group.   
we have a 2 week deadline to pass on any paper.  we use 5 people on  
the board and need 3 to approve publication of a paper.  one person  
is responsible for shepherding the paper through the process and  
responsible for getting the votes needed to publish.  on those  
occasions when we don't get the 3 votes on email, we have a  
conference call and actually walk through the paper.  we haven't  
missed out 2 week deadline yet.

like the IETF report, this is not a high volume publication effort,  
we only do about 10 white papers a year.

on the other hand, this being the ietf, if we need a rough consensus  
process, or worse yet a full consensus process, instead of a vote, it  
may be hard to pull off.

a.

On 12 okt 2005, at 07.26, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

>> I am a little concerned, though, about additional heavyweight  
>> mechanism being put in place, i.e. an Editorial Board (capital  
>> 'E', capital 'B'). I don't know what the current average  
>> turnaround time is for drafts through the RFC Editor's queue but  
>> if we end up with a similar, thickly layered process for the IETF  
>> Journal, it will lose its value of timeliness.
>>
>> I think it might be simpler and quicker to just have a dedicated  
>> IAB member or someone from the IAOC do a quick editorial review of  
>> the latest publication to catch any possible issues that might be  
>> cause a problem in public perception.
>>
>
> My suggestion is that we continue to accept contributions and say  
> stuff like "this is only Geoff Huston's silly opinion about  
> routing, if you disagree, please feel free to write the summary for  
> IETF 64" at the bottom of every article.
>
> If that is wrong, we'll know it pretty quickly, but this stuff has  
> the greatest benefit if it's published days, not months, after the  
> event.
>
> Spencer
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:47:49 +0200

We need some level of review, exactly as Avri describes, but
we can't realistically envisage sign-off by a general consensus
process - hence the need for an editorial board that, as I wrote,
*decides* content, format and frequency.

What JAK fears would worry me too, if I thought that's where
it would end up.

     Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> i work on on one editorial board with yet another technical group.   we 
> have a 2 week deadline to pass on any paper.  we use 5 people on  the 
> board and need 3 to approve publication of a paper.  one person  is 
> responsible for shepherding the paper through the process and  
> occasions when we don't get the 3 votes on email, we have a  conference 
> call and actually walk through the paper.  we haven't  missed out 2 week 
> deadline yet.
> 
> like the IETF report, this is not a high volume publication effort,  we 
> only do about 10 white papers a year.
> 
>>> mechanism being put in place, i.e. an Editorial Board (capital  'E', 
>>> capital 'B'). I don't know what the current average  turnaround time 
>>> is for drafts through the RFC Editor's queue but  if we end up with a 
>>> similar, thickly layered process for the IETF  Journal, it will lose 
>>> its value of timeliness.
>>>
>>> member or someone from the IAOC do a quick editorial review of  the 
>>> latest publication to catch any possible issues that might be  cause 
>>> a problem in public perception.
>>>
>>
>> stuff like "this is only Geoff Huston's silly opinion about  routing, 
>> if you disagree, please feel free to write the summary for  IETF 64" 
>> at the bottom of every article.
>>