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

SM,

Why don't you write a draft that discusses the issues you are seeing,
along with ideas on how to solve them?   It seems you think that the
Tao and newcomer's training are not at all adequate.

Mary.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:48 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
> Hi Spencer,
> At 13:30 28-03-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>
>> And for what it's worth, the IAB is meeting during the current Sunday
>> afternoon slots - at least the first one, and maybe both - so we can't drop
>> in and answer questions.
>
>
> It may be better not to stretch out I* members by pushing them into slots
> just because they don't have another meeting to attend.
>
> I spent two and a half hours discussing with someone new to the IETF.  The
> person followed the Newcomer session a few weeks ago.  I used the term
> "process documents" and I had to explain what I meant by that.  The person
> had a view of the "initial draft to publication" process which was, in my
> opinion, too formal.  The IESG was viewed as an authority instead of part of
> a process where people have to be coaxed into coming to agreement.  I tried
> to explain to the person not to push issues which could be resolved at the
> lower layers to the top.
>
> A long time ago Peter Koch posted some comments about terms used in the IETF
> [1].  I use some of those terms too.  The IETF way is to document those
> terms so that people can understand them.  It ends up as higher barrier for
> these people, i.e. the IETF expects people to follow its culture.
>
> My sense is that the current discussion might not be viewed as worthy of
> changes.  I am ok with that as I am not interested in breaking any stone
> wall. :-)
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/edu-discuss/current/msg00047.html
> _______________________________________________
> edu-discuss mailing list
> edu-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-discuss