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

<> Tue, 19 April 2016 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A312112DF97 for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rbTEwDr2JI1k for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1005312D767 for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1461078243; bh=M3epQtW0YRB4iQUTGb4ewYfWq2xxPX3UKOZBqSzkIU8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=QUrPee02grox1bpAY18mwy5rNwQEXuwg9ylYzfQ3fiM/nQ+FHpJ/rLvi6QXhVu98GNxq6NtyBnfbjMNWMUvWhCPdGG3a2AhwBchYzRWypTf3udx3IcE7/33OBLvhzrYjEpq3L7wcTKcSAHnbXDHtsuzjNAsuoxvlJUla9JckDSeaau6jtfCfdQZHcLjkTznbUHcriwroxPa9OFKiGTsB5YYYP8vim2tx2oa8yEVAd0AcYk3EFFvh2l9DD228F2WUIi9uktpAjoi+QBbU1P6BVcIqiLjdp5BP63XxlIpa855kJYFqAvQp6hdaW70iqUzK3APq8LZ4XwoPrZVWjyckGw==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2016 15:04:03 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2016 15:03:42 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2016 15:03:42 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: 2XMCfv4VM1lQfPlp5dKG8iOD8jeahTDLkNhg_DWL21qSVUeb5QtUYXn6J0oZxZn 56OwveEcUio3i6t9Qw3jtyJDOOhNoU1hwMlOM1WjJT8M8VbaShIzcZ8kXmymjAEzmWXPxG0zcf.w 2AHtffHk_AoFq8Em7PpiNxtra2aJXGCp59ztmlQqaMADjlIsn8HA.N6vtwFqmNPjIQsp._wSlQn9 NabaUk0STGZqgpR2ylyGRPzdKrbWjE4P7glrmwkVuSfgsoifxvv2BoDwIAhrXHVtvJZXN3vhttwG riLZ_h_HYM3m_9dbqVzEBk4r70r6g13KARXblsKEFE.gyjB8xKn21vuJxqoMCCCQTOJ.Jnaeu6Ti d12TUwQf6cwUgt89gAXdUjMCXeMC_aCjQA6irgH6ior7A745S1Ks4aM.XvIoKVjp1SEISTY9caau LU_4G2lT41BcrQa1LGQ5M6EdDWarZaJB.P9.kZQqw51cxqNum7dJIotcF7sBq.pIFus13WK2nloI BlZlpl.KAJUIArLVE2KI_Llw-
Received: by; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:03:42 +0000
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:02:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2610835_1083035457.1461078178021"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:05:06 -0700
Cc: Hui Deng <>, Dhruv Dhody <>, Vinayak Hegde <>, "" <>, "" <>, SM <>, Alvaro Retana <>, "" <>, Christian O'Flaherty <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] [Mentoring-coordinators] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:03:44 -0000

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.

Yes.  I think that is very good.  There are multiple reasons why a draft doesn't attract the attention of a working group.   That could be a very fruitful conversation.
But, I what I actually meant is that the draft was written but not really ready for "prime time", if you will.   Just in my experience, it seems that once you have a network of people within the IETF, then if you have a draft that you are not quite ready to post to the WG email list, you ask people privately if they will review.   And others ask you.  I am doing that right now for someone else before they post.
But for people who don't have a network, then this is to help them.   I think it is very good to ask for private review first.  So, maybe we call it that:
As in:
3.  Internet Draft Author: Private Review: Prior to posting to the public email list for your WG.
You actually bring up the topic of "problems progressing your draft", I think.  A big topic.