Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're famous

Marc Petit-Huguenin <> Fri, 16 April 2021 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC3D3A3724 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYPaPYm5PIqy for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:45:216:3eff:fe7f:7abd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40CB73A3726 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:648:8400:8e7d:d250:99ff:fedf:93cd] (unknown [IPv6:2601:648:8400:8e7d:d250:99ff:fedf:93cd]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27F62AE255; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 23:44:12 +0200 (CEST)
To: Wes Hardaker <>, Michael Thomas <>
References: <20210414185927.07A6E72E4243@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <>
Subject: Re: the old fellowship program, was Wow, we're famous
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:44:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:44:27 -0000

On 4/15/21 5:22 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Michael Thomas <> writes:
>> Maybe one thing that could be done is to have a set of things that
>> newbies can do to participate that are likely to be taken very
>> favorably. What author doesn't like somebody who's gone through your
>> ID with a fine tooth comb for nits, bad grammar, unclear text, etc and
>> especially from fresh eyes from the perspective of a potential
>> implementer, for example. Everybody would win in that situation. Their
>> naivety is a huge benefit.
> As a guide(s) I've (we've) mentioned this specific helpful task to
> newcomers.  However, reviewing documents is sort of "boring" task to
> many I'm sure.  What I've (we've?) failed to do is also state "and by
> doing this your name will be put in the acknowledgements section", which
> honestly might help motivate some.  Maybe.

I'd like to point out that it is not always true.  I had some reviews over the years that were not acknowledged in the final version of the RFC and I must say that spending hours on a substantial review without the only reward you could ever get for it is not a great feeling, especially as a newcomer.  Let's just say that the authors of these RFCs are not going out of my do-not-review list anytime soon.

Marc Petit-Huguenin