Re: [edu-discuss] Is the EDU team ossified?

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 06:41 28-03-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>I'm not on the EDU team any more, but I was for several years, and 
>gave the Newcomers Orientation a couple of times before switching to 
>WG Chair training/WG Leadership training. So, responding to a couple of things.

Ok.

>If you're asking for a First-time Attendees Survival tutorial, which 
>doesn't tell you as much as the existing Newcomers Orientation does, 
>but is focused on making sure you have as productive an IETF week as 
>it's possible for a newcomer to have ... that could be interesting.

What I noticed (assume that my opinion is heavily biased) is that the 
tutorial is not generating as much interest from new people as what 
one might like to see.  The problem is not the material as such.  It 
may be the level at which the group interaction occur.  The question 
is whether a survival tutorial or an the current approach is more 
effective.  I would go for the former as it brings down the 
information to a level which is accessible to new people.

>It might also interact with the pairing-up that was proposed 
>immediately after IETF 86, so probably asking in a broader context 
>than edu-discuss.

Someone mentioned peering on ietf@.  I don't really know how that can 
be done.  I would look at it from a broader context.  It's not like 
edu-discuss@ has to limit itself to a Sunday afternoon at a meeting.

>The current orientation is pretty comprehensive, it's stuff that I 
>hope IETF attendees learn eventually, but as I think you're saying, 
>you don't have to know everything in the tutorial to get started on 
>Monday morning of IETF week.

Yes.

>So, would adding a pointer for where to send feedback or ask 
>follow-on questions help?

Yes.  It's not easy to get people to ask questions though. :-)

>I can't answer for the thousands of IETF participants we have at 
>meetings and on mailing lists, but I can answer for myself ("no"), 
>and I can say that the IAB provided some updated material for the 
>IETF 86 version of the tutorial (describing the relatively-new IAB 
>programs, for example), and Scott quickly incorporated that material 
>into the tutorial and asked for confirmation that he'd gotten it 
>right. So people are trying to make improvements, and not just once.

It is good for people to know about the IAB programs.  I would not 
put it as part of the tutorial as it turns into cramming in too much 
information.  There is no best way to improve all this.  A lot is 
beyond an EDU team discussion.  Pushing more passive information 
reduces the amount of time for interaction.  It's the interaction 
that helps in moving IETF work forward.  I liked Kathleen's story as 
it is interactive and new people can relate to it.

At 08:12 28-03-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>It might also interact with some other comments made in that set
>of conversations.  If we believe, and are willing to admit to
>newcomers, that no one can be expected to be fully up to speed
>at their first meeting, especially if they haven't participated
>significantly on-list, then:
>
>         * Perhaps what you refer to as a survival guide might be
>         appropriate for Sunday afternoon or early Monday morning.
>
>         * Perhaps most of the current tutorial could better be
>         left for a second meeting or for Thursday evening or
>         Friday morning of the first one.  That would give the
>         first-timers the opportunity to observe both plenaries
>         and some WG sessions, letting that tutorial more about
>         providing context and advice.  In the current schedule,
>         it seems to me that there is a lot more material in it
>         that won't make much sense without at least some of that
>         context.

Yes.  And that's where the current material or a variant of it fits 
it.  I don't know when to schedule it as I haven't had time to look 
into what new people are actually doing with their time.  The current 
schedule can be reshuffled in different ways depending on what wants 
to achieve.

>If those two tutorials were done by different people, it would
>give the newcomers exposure to more than one perspective.  That
>would also be a good idea, IMO.

Yes.  BTW, a tutorial can also be done by two persons.  In my short 
experience such sessions are more dynamic.

Regards,
-sm