Re: [Diversity] [Mentoring-coordinators] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 April 2016 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E25F12B04D; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n8ltq2KGtpDM; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7972012DA28; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id t10so19676973ywa.0; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=mmOxdbJ7Nt5/55KCFFnOgjoKtxkxaKJwXczk/yR1hMk=; b=m8+0TZw7oj1I2lrYn7RGb++riCtd1QwW5lIF149QU8Na22sS6e2OrsvFsPXe+rLDIR B7o7Jy5TyM6SeCMFD+59DBWOVsASEOGFxC7c6TVh+fyGy95G+cK2c9terGZAFqQ1aHQE dZ8QfE3dYIcUCIXZBz8RUnZkd3N+lFTMzBVgj+n5vKfR7aHUSG/iHawN8GIB9rPkY/2C sNO7GCUlnsDqsk7fLfiUh8zfGpKHS4Lm6IyOaHHuVAG0sv0e9StqfmBeZuGzJAPRkANe gOvQK61gjYB5csfRz+j1DIVA21X6PxZTpVPF1cBjkyTli09CcX7rbRQsOdhaFUrmd+J1 b6XQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=mmOxdbJ7Nt5/55KCFFnOgjoKtxkxaKJwXczk/yR1hMk=; b=fHlmDjD/cllw8OMzpKo1PoqoDpKaVxvH+sBYwT03Vo0lWwIaRtIfDGRQoGnbNoRZcV l6vo4IfMS96IwEC7bS/WKRSwqRrnJyMUTM9tixKmpusfiWqyNNKLBEtEtszk+yvx3dfb 7oiLL8HyIHNs/gurxFYFQvXrcXjsJUeCU7WfiSW9WvUlStHF8YWf3d08HOh++iwnwKDz kLTdBtrHRVGh7U3tuDOoP+nBbKFZ5vw/PcSBIKGuB3IWK3RIFNrfV0WRgI6StCwfG/p4 V2nqM4T997cUCzXWgXai6kQdh32oT2TTtCXmyDBgihW8Farxto4Aif1A7grrTigbUFda cWYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV/0zSDlJMAIJgl8j8Da80Aga9k68YXkQmdgpZhsYhrhK9i3yIaMAzUHzechytGynixq9YBUdfRX+NITQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.226.211 with SMTP id l202mr1959473ywe.294.1461077391698; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.224.212 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1396443756.2719869.1461076623226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <571640D4.4020102@dcrocker.net> <1396443756.2719869.1461076623226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:49:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-f38qbrvBTGxtOGZpROoxGcj2yOqhL+PKPWqEYJBitFuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fa634ebf7150530d796d7
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/JYBdtCUY2k645SpwKph9xs9Txic>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:50:28 -0700
Cc: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>, SM <sm@resistor.net>, "mentoring-coordinators@ietf.org" <mentoring-coordinators@ietf.org>, Christian O'Flaherty <oflaherty@isoc.org>, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] [Mentoring-coordinators] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)
X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <diversity.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diversity/>
List-Post: <mailto:diversity@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:49:57 -0000

You folks are doing just fine with this, but ...

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:37 AM, <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> wrote:

>  Dave
>
>
>
> On 4/19/2016 7:20 AM, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com wrote:
> > 1.  Internet draft review teams (already started)
> ..
> > 3.  Internet draft critique teams (will start time after next!)  Help
> > people who have a draft make it better.
>
>
> >Nalini,
>
> >Can you clarify the difference between these two activities?  In the
> >IETF, 'review' usually involves critical analysis.
>
> >My guess is that you intend the two efforts to come at different times
> >and to have people who differ in their relationship to the document
> >development process.  But that's just a guess and it's not very specific.
>
> Yes.  I think I need a different name for the activity #3.
>
> What I was thinking is:
>
> 3.  Internet Draft Author Assistance:  The team will help an author who is
> due to present at an upcoming IETF.  etc, etc.
>
>
> But, as I think more, we probably need a step in between, as in:
>
> 3.  Internet Draft Author Assistance: Phase 1:  The team will help an
> author who has a draft but does not have an agenda slot.  The group will
> help the author solidify his / her ideas, see where there are holes in the
> logic, etc.
>

Could I suggest that you focus on something like "hasn't attracted the
attention of a working group", rather than "does not have an agenda slot"?

If the working group doesn't pay attention, the draft isn't going anywhere,
whether you have an agenda slot or not.

There are working group chairs who give agenda slots to drafts that don't
have the attention of a working group, just because they have time
available (after dealing with all chartered items, of course). That isn't
nearly as significant as presenters think it is.

Helping people who have the attention of a working group prepare for
presentations is, of course, fine.

Spencer


> 4.  Internet Draft Author Assistance: Phase 2:  The team will help an
> author who is due to present at an upcoming IETF.  etc, etc
>
> Nalini
>
>
>
>