Subject: video introducing your working group

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:47:15 +0200

Adrian and I gave an introduction to the routing area session this Sunday at IETF.  It seemed relatively well received.

In discussing the session with Mirjam at the end, I had mentioned that a recording of such a session probably has limited appeal and freshness.  WGs change and I suspect very few people would want to sit through the 1.5 hr discussion we gave as a youtube video.

What I offered as a suggestion was that perhaps we could have micro videos the chairs (or their proxies) record giving a high level overview of the group.

Whether this is of use in addition to the narrative some groups have with their charter is obviously a point of discussion.

-- Jeff (who admittedly cringes watching videos of himself.)

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:03:34 +0200

Like this?
(Not just one WG, though.)

http://www.gogo6.com/video/standardization-in-internet-of-things-directly-from-source

Having a good interviewer makes creating this kind of video really easy.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Adam W. Montville" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:04:30 +0200

Both approaches seem worthwhile.  Something more targeted, as Carsten points out, can certainly be effective.  But, if you’re holding a session anyway, what harm is there in recording and posting that session (it’s not that hard to record and post, really - or is it?).

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Like this?

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:04:40 +0200

Wait -- you want to expose the curious way we work to the entire world
of youtubers?
Prepare for snarky comments...

(On a more serious note, the expectation to be exposed on video may
change the way we work in unexpected ways.  Many people aren't aware
about the way the context changes a conversation until it hits them...)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:06:49 +0000

Posting WG sessions to youtube seems like asking for trouble.

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:11:30 -0700

+1 unfortunately for many reasons

-- tony

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:19:37 +0000

>Posting WG sessions to youtube seems like asking for trouble.

Not on YouTube, but they¹re already online.  For example:
http://www.meetecho.com/ietf92/recordings/

Alvaro.

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:58:11 -0700

In addition to the written charter, we could post a little video for each
WG, including one for the area, that gets updated whenever it looks like
what's there is stale.  The WG chairs could be responsible for deciding
when it needs to be updated.

Radia

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:05:29 +0200

Radia,

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Radia Perlman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> In addition to the written charter, we could post a little video for each WG, including one for the area, that gets updated whenever it looks like what's there is stale.  The WG chairs could be responsible for deciding when it needs to be updated.

This is exactly what I had in mind.

-- Jeff

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:05:58 +0200

> What I offered as a suggestion was that perhaps we could have micro videos the chairs (or their proxies) record giving a high level overview of the group.

An appealing idea.

However...

     What will be the overall effect of having only some working groups
with videos, some of the videos of relatively poor quality, and some
videos being meaningfully out out of date?

Because that's what this will converge towards as a steady state, given
the amount of effort to do better than that and the distributed and
limited control over production...

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:15:27 +0200

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" - I don't buy it.

If Tom Nadeau wants to have netmod with a rock video featuring special effects of unicorns, let him.  Some videos are bound to be better than others - although perhaps we can converge on some best practices.  I suspect we'll find simple videos with the chairs talking in front of an IETF banner sufficient.

-- Jeff

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:28:34 -0400

Just jumping in at an arbitrary point...

Who is such a video targeted at? Is it people who *can't* read, people 
who *won't* read, or people who don't want to read?

I realize there are a lot of people who fall into those categories, but 
assert that those people will rapidly learn that IETF is not for them.

This isn't to say that videos shouldn't be made available if they exist. 
But I'd rather see more effort put into textual overviews.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:34:10 -0700

-1

Most folks i've seen being forced to create marketing video clips didn't
really like to do it - and the job was accordingly.

This sounds like a great job for more important folks. Lets AD's do it.

I am all for publishing WG explanations in video as soon as we also publish RFCs as videos.

Cheers
    toerless

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:41:54 -0700

That's what I assumed the first question would be.  How would this be
different from the written charter..

Great question.  One potential answer is that the charter is carefully
wordsmithed with great Political Meaning in every word (often).  Not
intended to be tutorial.  Videos do tend to be a pain to produce, and even
to watch (hey! we could make it more annoying by forcing people to watch an
ad first).  So I'm not so much a fan of videos.  Or ppts without audio to
go along with it.  Going to a WG page there is a charter, then there are
100 documents, often in arcane jargon, and certainly not easy to know how
they all fit in, or which ones one should start with.  With only at most 2
tutorial slots for technical stuff at IETFs, we can't do a tutorial for
each WG.  Even the area overview can't really cover what's going on inside
a WG.

I'd imagine a tutorial document (or video) that goes along with a WG that
says, minus as much jargon as possible, what the point of the WG is, how it
compares with similar WGs, what the difficult technical issues are, what
the controversies are, and a map of the documents.  Since it's limited to
one WG, and doesn't have to wait until there is a tutorial slot available
on a Sunday at IETF, it can be kept up to date.

Not every WG would need such a thing, or have the energy to do it, but I
think it would not only be helpful to those outside the WG, it would be
helpful to the WG "insiders" to take stock of what's going on and summarize
thorny technical issues/controversies clearly, every so often.

Radia

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Who is such a video targeted at? Is it people who *can't* read, people who
> *won't* read, or people who don't want to read?
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:11:24 -0400

On 7/20/15 2:41 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:
>  >>Who is such a video targeted at? Is it people who *can't* read,
> people who *won't* read, or people who don't want to read?
>
> intended to be tutorial.  Videos do tend to be a pain to produce, and
> even to watch (hey! we could make it more annoying by forcing people to
> watch an ad first).  So I'm not so much a fan of videos.  Or ppts
> without audio to go along with it.  Going to a WG page there is a
> charter, then there are 100 documents, often in arcane jargon, and
> certainly not easy to know how they all fit in, or which ones one should
> start with.  With only at most 2 tutorial slots for technical stuff at
> IETFs, we can't do a tutorial for each WG.  Even the area overview can't
> really cover what's going on inside a WG.
>
> I'd imagine a tutorial document (or video) that goes along with a WG
> that says, minus as much jargon as possible, what the point of the WG
> is, how it compares with similar WGs, what the difficult technical
> issues are, what the controversies are, and a map of the documents.
> Since it's limited to one WG, and doesn't have to wait until there is a
> tutorial slot available on a Sunday at IETF, it can be kept up to date.

I agree the charter and the documents don't serve as a very good 
introduction. But if somebody wants to put effort into an overview of 
the wg, then IMO it would be better to do it text first. Could then 
"make the movie based on the book", but why?

	Thanks,
	Paul

> helpful to the WG "insiders" to take stock of what's going on and
> summarize thorny technical issues/controversies clearly, every so often.
>
> Radia
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Who is such a video targeted at? Is it people who *can't* read,
>     people who *won't* read, or people who don't want to read?
>
>     I realize there are a lot of people who fall into those categories,
>     but assert that those people will rapidly learn that IETF is not for
>     them.
>
>     This isn't to say that videos shouldn't be made available if they
>     exist. But I'd rather see more effort put into textual overviews.
>
>              Thanks,
>              Paul
>
>

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:24:39 -0700

http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates

After that, lots of data has been mined as to what correlates with the
outcome of presidential election after the advent of TV vs. before.

Only one thing came out: The guy with better hair always won ...

http://www.youbeauty.com/the-rules-of-attraction/presidential-election-and-appearance/

I would suggest we keep IETF's relevance rooted in technical content which
is conveyed by diagrams and concise, fluent and lucid writing style and not
necessarily by sleek appearances in rock-star videos ;-)

with half my tongue in the other cheek ;-)

-- tony

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> introduction. But if somebody wants to put effort into an overview of the
> wg, then IMO it would be better to do it text first. Could then "make the
> movie based on the book", but why?
>
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
>

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:58:48 +0200

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I agree the charter and the documents don't serve as a very good introduction. But if somebody wants to put effort into an overview of the wg, then IMO it would be better to do it text first. Could then "make the movie based on the book", but why?

It's often amusing to me and somewhat disheartening how much the original point is lost during the discussion.

Adrian and I gave a introduction to the routing-area tutorial.
The attendees were not newcomers.
Half of the attendees were people who had done work in the routing area before.
The majority of the attendees seemed to find the presentation useful.

We've had our charters and other stuff for ages.  Based on the observations above, the text alone is perhaps not serving well enough.

Whether videos are helpful or not is TBD.  I'm certainly happy to regularly help the edu team. I think it's silly to give and update of the same presentation every N IETFs.
And even if we did, do you *really* want Adrian and I characterizing your WG to the room of those looking to learn more?

-- Jeff (we never really did have a good explanation for TRILL)