Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Ofer Inbar]

I'm not a newcomer, but I don't go to meetings very often.  I joined
the IETF list in 1990 and have participated in some WGs on and off
since then, but in that whole time I think I've attended only 5 IETF
meetings.  So, in the stats the secretariat keeps, I don't know if I
show up as a repeat, especially considering that I've only registered
twice under the same employer, thanks to the plethora of mergers in
our industry :)

When I do attend a meeting, I take the opportunity to visit other WG
sessions I'm interested in.  Often these are topics that I've
participated in in the past, but have had to drop due to limited time,
so I read drafts occasionally and I visit WG sessions when I'm there,
just to keep up and maybe be able to plug back in more easily at some
point in the future when I have time.  I think one of the main
benefits of going to an IETF meeting, as opposed to WG mailing lists
or interim meetings, is exactly that.  Being aware of what's going on
around our own narrow WG interests gives it all a useful context.  And
more than once I've been able to speak up at a session of a WG I
wasn't participating in, and say "hey, are you aware of similar
project X being done in WG Z that seems to relate to what we're
discussing here?"

Because I attend so infrequently, outside of whatever WG I happen to
be participating in at the time, few people recognize me.  So even
though I'm not a newbie, people have no way of knowing that.  I've
found that the IETF is one of the easiest organizations for a new and
unconnected person to be accepted in and taken serious.  Perhaps *the*
easiest.  I often find myself in hallway conversation with chairs and
ADs and protocol authors, who don't seem to think of themselves as any
different from any other IETF attendees, and who will speak with
anyone who has an interesting point to make, whether they know the
person or not.

Sure, there are some barriers, when some people know each other and
other's don't.  But in the IETF, the barriers are at their weakest.
As with all such situations, a lot of the perceived barrier is likely
in the perceiver's head, and in this case, I think that's more true
than in most.  If you *think* there's an old-boy network, and treat
people accordingly, and hesitate to talk, that can be self-fulfilling.
It's easy to percieve a clique where there isn't one, if you're
expecting a clique.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  --  Exodus Professional Services  -- http://www.exodus.net/
   "We all misuse the net for personal gain, one way or another."
   -- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Keith Moore]

> Just look through the archives
> and you'll see that every so often someone (usually but not
> always from 'outside') will pop up in public
> and claim that the IETF is run solely by and for the benefit
> of large corporations.  It isn't a particularly difficult
> argument to counter, but the damage to the organization's
> image is still there.

not much we can do about it, I'm afraid.  part of the price of
being successful is having envious folks take pot shots at you.
the fact that their arguments are vacuous doesn't keep them from trying,
and occasionally, doing some damage.

Keith

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Robert G. Ferrell]

>I can imagine, without much trouble, a scenario
>in which, e.g., someone showed up and claimed to "represent" a
>company with considerable IETF experience (and other employees
>as long-term participants), started pushing a technically
>unviable idea and justifying it on the basis of his or her
>company's market position.  

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of thing the IETF is 
periodically accused of doing.  Just look through the archives 
and you'll see that every so often someone (usually but not 
always from 'outside') will pop up in public
and claim that the IETF is run solely by and for the benefit 
of large corporations.  It isn't a particularly difficult 
argument to counter, but the damage to the organization's 
image is still there.

Cheers,

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
Information Systems Security Officer
National Business Center
U. S. Dept. of the Interior
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Brian E Carpenter]

Isaac,

Welcome!

I would say that the first year of involvement in the IETF is tough on anybody.
It takes that long to learn the language. 

   Brian

"Udotong, Isaac" wrote:
> 
> As a newcomer, I can't agree more with Bill, or at least I find it difficult
> doing so. Apart from reading emails, I kind of feel left behind.
> 
> Isaac Udotong
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 4:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Welcoming newcomers
> 
> Bill Manning wrote:
> ...
> > I enjoyed a much different experience. I was asked by a couple of
> > WG chairs if I would be willing to take on tasks that needed to be
> > done, was invited to share opinions and thoughts by folks on the
> > IAB... as a first time attendee. Getting involved was easy. Those
> > responsible encouraged new blood.  Recent experience seems to
> indicate
> > a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
> > much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting
> today,
> > I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.
> 
> If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
> increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
> own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved
> when
> we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.
> 
> If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
> them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to
> know.
> 
>   Brian

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, 21 December, 2000 06:28 -0800 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
>  was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a
>  market-driven company  that is flush with cash, its no reason
>  to berate people in public, even if done in a lighthearted
>  way.  

I don't want to start kicking a dead horse here, and everyone
has been (appropriately) circumspect about the circumstances.
Unfortunately, I can imagine, without much trouble, a scenario
in which, e.g., someone showed up and claimed to "represent" a
company with considerable IETF experience (and other employees
as long-term participants), started pushing a technically
unviable idea and justifying it on the basis of his or her
company's market position.  In such a situation, if more gentle
means seemed ineffective, a little public berating --I'd hope of
the "represented" company more than the individual-- would be
regretable but perhaps quite justified.

Note that many of the elements associated with much of the
recent discussion of "newcomer" are not present in the scenario
above.  The offender is assumed to come from an organization
that has a long history with IETF.  He or she is presumed to
have organizational colleagues who know better.  Gentle hints
have presumably failed. 

I, and even the most self-proclaimed hard-nosed people I've seen
in the IETF leadership, are usually extremely tolerant and
supportive of newcomers who are interested in participating in
the IETF and advancing its work, especially those who approach
us without tying up WG meeting time.  The tolerance tends to
become limited only when patience and education fail and to
become exhausted only in the presence of obnoxious behavior by
those who have had ample opportunity to learn/ know better.

Let's not create categories that sweep the cases together.

john

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Keith Moore]

> And yes, I've seen WG try and discard earlier work...

I've seen them succeed, though perhaps not often enough.

> (btw, whats the distinguishing characteristic between an "outsider" and an "
> insider"?)

I was remembering numerous instances when an organization would issue 
a press release of the form "we have protocol X, it's wonderful, and we're
submitting it to IETF"...eventually sending in an I-D which either got 
completely ignored or (in rare cases) got published as Experimental with
the title changed from "the X standard" to "FOOCORP's X protocol".

Keith

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Bill Manning]

% 
% > % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
% > % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
% > %
% > 
% > True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
% > work already complete. 
% 
% outsiders have tried to treat IETF like a rubber stamp for years; this
% is nothing new.  but in my experience, IETF doesn't function that way - 
% working groups feel quite free to change or discard earlier work.
% (some are even hostile to earlier work)
% 
% Keith
% 

As have "insiders".  And yes, I've seen WG try and discard earlier work...
(btw, whats the distinguishing characteristic between an "outsider" and an "insider"?)

-- 
--bill

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Keith Moore]

> % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
> % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
> %
> 
> True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
> work already complete. 

outsiders have tried to treat IETF like a rubber stamp for years; this
is nothing new.  but in my experience, IETF doesn't function that way - 
working groups feel quite free to change or discard earlier work.
(some are even hostile to earlier work)

Keith

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Bill Manning]

% 
% I was not present so I could not clarify.  It does seem pretty
% clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
% with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
% for standards approval/rubber stamping. 
% 
% in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
% but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
% 

True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
work already complete. This sad state of affairs is, IMHO, part of the
reason for the lack of tolerance. 

-- 
--bill

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Bill Manning]

% 
% > Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
% 
% thanks for the quotes file entry!
% 

Proper attribution is then required. It came to me originally  from Jon Postel
and was independently espoused by Dave Farber. I would hope that you don't
attribute things to me that come from elswhere.

-- 
--bill

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Keith Moore]

I was not present so I could not clarify.  It does seem pretty
clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
for standards approval/rubber stamping. 

in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Randy Bush]

> Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.

thanks for the quotes file entry!

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Bill Manning]

% 
% > Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
% >  or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
% >  to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
% presented,
% >  was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company
% >  that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
% >  if done in a lighthearted way.
% 
% i suppose it's my turn to argue for the politically-incorrect perspective.
% 
% i don't think it's unreasonable for people to do their homework, a lot of
% homework.

Me either.
 
% i don't think it's unreasonable for us to admit that quality counts, and
% that bad ideas are, well..., bad.

Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.

% i don't think it's unreasonable for the ietf membership to develop
% auto-immune responses to badness. quite the contrary, it is praiseworthy.

True, but to shoot the messenger, in public, reflects poorly on
the people skills of those whom we are supposed to follow.

% obviously, it would be preferable if the corporate type in question had more
% clue and less agenda.
% obviously, it would be preferable for someone to have privately explained
% that fact to him or her.

Yup.

% regardless, i want to thank the chair in question for acting as an agent for
% adult supervision.

Perhaps. I might also be prepared to thank the co-chair in question,
but I was not there and don't know the specifics. And I may not even
care all that much. What I would expect is (un)common curtesy and 
respect for the attendees and participants on the part of the WG chairs
and the respective ADs. Adult supervision does not require abandoning
these traits.

% /mtr

--bill

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Marshall T. Rose]

> Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
>  or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
>  to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
presented,
>  was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company
>  that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
>  if done in a lighthearted way.

i suppose it's my turn to argue for the politically-incorrect perspective.

i don't think it's unreasonable for people to do their homework, a lot of
homework.

i don't think it's unreasonable for us to admit that quality counts, and
that bad ideas are, well..., bad.

i don't think it's unreasonable for the ietf membership to develop
auto-immune responses to badness. quite the contrary, it is praiseworthy.

obviously, it would be preferable if the corporate type in question had more
clue and less agenda.

obviously, it would be preferable for someone to have privately explained
that fact to him or her.

regardless, i want to thank the chair in question for acting as an agent for
adult supervision.

/mtr

ps: i have no idea what incident we're talking about, but that obviously
didn't stop me from commenting on it.

RE: Welcoming newcomers

[Udotong, Isaac]

As a newcomer, I can't agree more with Bill, or at least I find it difficult
doing so. Apart from reading emails, I kind of feel left behind.

Isaac Udotong


-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 4:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Welcoming newcomers


Bill Manning wrote:
...
> I enjoyed a much different experience. I was asked by a couple of
> WG chairs if I would be willing to take on tasks that needed to be
> done, was invited to share opinions and thoughts by folks on the
> IAB... as a first time attendee. Getting involved was easy. Those
> responsible encouraged new blood.  Recent experience seems to
indicate
> a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
> much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting
today,
> I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.

If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved
when
we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.

If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to
know.

  Brian

Re: Welcoming newcomers

[Bill Manning]

 Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
 or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
 to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
 was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company 
 that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
 if done in a lighthearted way.  


% Bill,
% 
% This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored. 
% 
%Brian
% 
% Bill Manning wrote:
% > 
% > % > Bill said:
% > % >   a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
% > % >   much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting today,
% > % >   I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.
% > %
% > % If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
% > % increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
% > % own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved when
% > % we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.
% > %
% > % If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
% > % them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to know.
% > %
% > %   Brian
% > 
% > I have reason to beleive that newcomers are NOT getting a fair hearing.
% > Attached is a sanitized bit of email I received in the last week.
% > 
% > 
% >    <
% >   area. So far I have had the area director hiss at me when I
% >  meeting and been told that certain
% >   
% > --
% > --bill
% 
% 


-- 
--bill