►
From YouTube: IETF98-WGCHAIRS-20170329-1130
Description
WGCHAIRS meeting session at IETF98
2017/03/29 1130
A
A
Tiny
tiny
glitch
in
the
paperwork
for
the
lunches
said
1230
instead
of
1130,
but
that's
okay.
Everybody
have
your
lunch
alright.
Now
that
we
have
enough
attention
sup
for
today's
working
group
chairs
forum,
I'm,
not
sure
why
I
put
this
up
here,
but
I
do
believe
we're
streaming
it
with
me
dekho.
So
I
thought
we
better
cover
the
fact
that
you
are
still
at
the
IETF.
So
this
is
our
agenda
for
today,
I.
A
Would
like,
if
there's
any
possibility
of
somebody
taking
notes,
I
mean
Miriam,
is
going
to
take
someone.
We
would
like
a
second
person
taking
notes.
Are
there
any
volunteers
to
do
that?
Volunteers?
All
of
you
are
working
your
chairs.
You
know
how
hard
it
is
to
get
a
volunteer
to
take
notes,
and
yet
none
of
you
volunteer.
A
B
A
It's
I
love,
but
somebody
said
it's
hard
to
take
notes
when
you're
eating.
Well,
that
is
true.
Ok,
so
the
agenda
four
days
we're
going
to
go
over
the
working
groups.
The
website
update
from
Greg
we're
going
to
hear
from
the
github
of
off
folks
and
then
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
education
and
mentoring
activities
going
forward.
So
Greg.
B
D
C
Okay,
better,
okay,
my
name
is
greg
wood.
I've
been
working
with
several
folks
on
this
ITF
website
revamp
and
the
goal
of
today's
conversation
is
really
there
really
a
couple
of
them
when
it's
just
to
make
sure
that
you
all
know
where
we
stand.
You're
me
to
eat
that
microphone.
I
won't
leave
the
microphone.
A
C
You
thank
you,
so
my
name
is
greg.
Wood.
I've
been
working
with
a
lot
of
good
folks
on
the
ITF
website
revamp,
and
I
wanted
to
talk
with
you
all
today
for
just
a
little
bit.
There
are
a
couple
of
goals
that
I
have
in
mind.
One
of
them
is
to
just
give
an
update
of
where
we
are
on
this
project,
which
was
started
a
while
ago
and
has
been
making
steady
progress
recently
sort
of
accelerating.
C
C
Things
up
by
just
prompting
some
questions
at
the
beginning,
so
you
can
have
them
in
mind
as
we
get
through
the
presentation
they're
on
there
on
the
site
here
and
they
sort
of
mirror
some
of
the
on
the
slide
here
and
they
sort
of
here
are
some
of
the
questions
that
we
asked
the
initial
phase
of
research
that
was
done
to
help
provide
direction
for
where
the
website
should
evolve
to.
So
you
can
read
them
here
and
I'll
put
them
up
again.
C
Just
real
quick,
a
compressed
version
of
the
history,
so
I
think
it's
almost
two
years
ago
now.
Actually
we
started
drafting
the
scope
of
work
that
was
shared
with
the
on
the
ITF
at
IDF
list
got
some
really
good
input
and
our
work
with
the
ia
ia,
OC
technology
management
committee,
I
supposed
to
say
the
tools
committee
but
I,
think
that's
the
official
name
to
work
through
the
actual
scope
of
work
which
is
posted
on
the
ilc
site
and
make
of
a
selection
on
the
vendor,
which
is
torch
box.
C
There's
also
a
link
to
them,
I
think
on
the
a
IOC
site
and
then
part
of
that
scope
of
work
was
to
establish
a
community
review
committee.
So
the
idea
was
to
have
sort
of
an
ongoing
sounding
board
for
the
project
that
would
be
provide
some
immediate
feedback
and
correction
if
needed,
or
how
the
work
was
progressing
into
that.
That
has
worked
pretty
well
I
think
you
saw
from
yards
note
earlier
this
week
or
last
week.
C
I
guess
that
Joe
no
Joe
Hildebrand
was
the
initial
project
manager
and
did
a
lot
of
great
work
and
now
Russ
housley
has
taken
over
as
the
project
manager
so
yeah.
So
the
last
thing,
as
I
mentioned,
one
of
the
first
steps
also
is
once
we
got
the
vendor
in
places
to
do
some
research
to
figure
out
what
was
working
and
what
wasn't
working
based
on
the
requirements
set
forth
in
the
scope
of
work.
C
And
part
of
those
part
of
the
requirements
were
that
the
IETF
website
had
some
very
specific,
the
dub
dub
dub
part.
Specifically,
I
should
say
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
is
the
work
of
scopes:
dub
dub
dub,
that
idea
org,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
other
web
assets
or
web
presence
of
them
that
we
know
that
the
idea
of
community
specifically
uses
so
like
data
tracker
or
or
others.
But
this
is
this
is
specifically.
This
project
is
specifically
scoped
on
WWF
org
yeah.
C
The
other
thing
we
did
was
talk
to
the
three
audience
that
are
specified
in
the
scope
of
work
is
active
participant.
So
folks,
like
you
folks
who
come
to
ITF
meetings,
you
participate
on
mailing
lists
proactively
engaged.
You
already
know
about
the
idea
potential
participants,
so
people
who
are
either
working
in
the
technical
areas
that
the
ITF
covers,
or
perhaps
people
who
are
considering
or
working
there
or
so
forth,
and
then
the
last
where
people
will
never
ever
participate
in
the
ITF,
but
who
need
to
know
why?
What
the
ITF
does
and
why
it's
important.
C
C
Audience
research
findings
so
yeah.
So
there
was
a
there's
a
there's,
a
long
longer
version
of
this.
But
this
is
just
sort
of
a
summary
of
the
summary
and
I
think.
These
three
points
were
representative
of
sort
of
the
broad
seven
views
of
just
a
real
quick
back
note
about
the
research
most
of
it
relied
on
interviews
with
people
who
sort
of
came
from
those
three
audiences,
so
as
well
as
some
sort
of
best
practices,
benchmarking
across
other
organizations-
and
you
can
read
it
there
again,
but
in
short,
it's.
C
C
Another
another
part
in
here
that
isn't
highlighted,
but
I
think
is
represented
in
the
design
you'll
see.
Is
that
really
the
focus
needs
to
be
on
the
work
of
the
ITF
right?
So
that
is
it's
that
the
work
of
the
IDF
is
distinguishing
characteristic,
and
so
we
shouldn't
lose
that
there
was
some
discussion
on
the
mail
in
this.
For
example,
the
scope
of
work
was
circulated
that
we
should
be
sure
that
the
ITF
website,
the
ww
presence,
doesn't
devolve
into
a
marketing
flash
dependent
kind
of
website
right.
C
E
E
C
Another
another
example
of
one
of
the
requirements
of
the
scope
of
workers
that
the
website
needs
to
work
better
on
different
kinds
of
devices
with
different
sized
viewports.
The
current
site-
oh
I,
did
yeah
I
switched
it
right,
so
nevermind
time
time
is
linear.
We
didn't
go
back
in
time
yeah,
so
the
labels
are
switched,
but
you
can
easily
tell,
as
you
noted,
which
is
before.
E
C
E
C
C
Let
me
just
skip
ahead
here,
so
what's
next,
so
we're
doing
some
show-and-tell
at
the
ITF
there's
a
table
down
by
the
bridge
idea,
registration
and
I
I
think
there's
one
more
sweet.
We've
been
there
a
couple
of
times.
If
there's
one
more
session.
Look
yet
this
week,
it's
either
tomorrow
morning
or
friday
morning,
I
need
to
check
my
calendar
and
I'll
be
there
and
I
can
we
can
play
with
the
website.
C
A
Yeah,
can
you
just
put
up
the
questions
that
you
had?
We
were
in
group
chairs,
so
part
of
the
reason
for
doing
this
in
this
particular
forum
was
this:
this
community
represents
the
experienced
IET
efforts
and
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
for
is
how
exactly
do
experience.
Ihf
is
actually
use
the
website
and
is
the
information
that
they
you
know,
or
do
you
possibly
not
use
it
very
much
I
mean
is:
do
you
primarily
use
data
tracker?
So
what
are
you
looking
for
in
the
website
anyway?
F
One
comment:
one
question:
so
I
think
when
you
list
it,
when
you
listed
the
audience's,
we
were
number
one
it
shouldn't
be,
I
would
say
potential
idea:
participer
and
the
rest
of
the
community
should
be
number
one
and
not
us
and
and
then
a
question
is
search
engine,
optimization
and
scope
for
the
project.
I'm.
F
C
F
G
Rick
Taylor
and
just
answer
someone
of
your
questions
and
I
go
straight
to
the
data
tracker
for
my
day-to-day
chair
stuff.
The
only
time
I
use
the
IETF
oxide
is
to
work
out
where
the
hotel
is
and
how
to
do
that,
and
that's
it's
a
pain
to
find
at
the
moment.
So
improvements
are
great
and
like
that's
as
a
chair,
what
I
use
it
for
but
I'm,
just
a
chair.
G
C
H
I
C
I
think
we're
still
working
that
out
the
exact
evac
mechanism,
but
you'll
either
they'll
either
be
obviously
there'll,
be
an
email
address
of
amenity
other
ways
to
do
it
as
well
and
will
provide
more
be
back.
Part
of
the
process
I
think,
is
to
provide
early
access
to
the
community
to
the
site,
so
they
can
poke
around
yeah.
E
C
I
I
J
Well,
I
actually
like
the
old
fashioned
I,
maybe
I'm,
just
old-fashioned,
gray-haired
and
stuff.
So
how
about
we
had
two
front
pages
one
for
those
people
that
for
the
public
as
it
were,
and
one
for
the
very
experienced
IETF
is
we
just
want
to
go
straight
there
for,
for
example,
clicking
the
button
to
book
the
hotel,
which
is
sort
of
one
of
the
most
urgent
tasks.
You
have
to
do
three
times
a
year.
J
K
C
L
Dean
I
would
like
to
second
to
comment
about
that.
We
shouldn't
be
the
main
target
audience
for
the
front-facing
website,
I
like,
but
you
had
to
say
Stewart
about
having
a
place
that
we
can
go
to
quickly
get
to
ever.
We
need
to
get,
but
I
think
the
front-facing
part
of
it
should
focus
on
potential
working
group
contributors
and
specifically
getting
them
the
info.
L
They
need
to
participate
and
make
it
easy,
and
I
would
say
that
would
be
teaching
them
about
the
ITF
process,
teaching
them
about
how
they
can
contribute
either
by
submitting
a
draft
or
contacting
the
people.
They
want
to
contact
to
participate
so
mailing
lists
and
such
and
how
that
works,
and
the
third
would
be
how
to
get
to
our
teas
and
do
implementations
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
I
would
focus
on
that
on
the
front
facing
part.
Ok,.
J
Strip
right,
I'm
glad
you
picked
up
on
the
left
hand,
side
but
right
hand
side
about
sort
of
two
about
your
third
of
the
way
down
from
the
top
is
everything
you
need
to
know
for
the
meeting,
though
click
on
there
and
you
get
to
the
meeting
notes
the
hotel's
everything
you
want.
That
also
needs
to
be
on
the
front
page
yeah.
M
Spencer
Dawkins,
my
big,
so
I
live
in
the
data
tracker
I'm,
not
a
great
candidate.
My
biggest
frustration
is
not
just
the
hotel
but
I'll.
All
the
meeting
links
change
from
97
298
I
would
be
happy
to
a
bookmark
stuff
in
ietf
52.
You
know
to
get
to
the
next
meeting
or
register
or
something
like
that.
If
those
links
still
worked
for
98,
but
since
they,
since
they
simply
move
that
we
have
to
navigate
the
thing,
so
that
would
be
helpful.
M
C
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
neat
comment.
One
thing:
I
failed
to
mention
in
terms
of
the
scope
of
work,
but
I
Kabul
should
is
that
for
well-known
URLs.
Those
are
supposed
to
do.
Those
are
required
to
remain
workable.
So
even
though
the
particular
parts
of
the
site
may
move
the
URLs
that
are
well
known
and
publicized
yeah
right
so.
M
C
N
Alexandra
both
two
very
short
remarks.
The
first
one
is
some
dough,
exactly
2,
I'm
completely
agreeing
and
that
we
should
focus
on
the
on
the
target
here
so
facilitate
the
life
of
people
coming,
and
this
actually,
for
me,
is
much
more
than
just
the
web
design.
So
it
is
actually
looking
at
what
facilitates
know
people
discovering
the
links
and
so
forth,
and
so
far
they
discover
actually
discovering
the
information.
And
for
me
this
is
like
completely
different.
I
mean
this
is
the
first
thing
to
do,
and
then
the
design
comes
afterwards.
O
Jones
me
well,
John
Scott
are
from
I
guess
you
have
to
either
Mike
but
I.
Don't
yeah
I
wanted
to
add
one
thing
to
the
previous
comments
about
the
quicklinks,
which
is
I've
recently
suffered
through
redesigns
of
various
other
web
presences
that
I
make
frequent
use
of,
and
they
seem
to
have
a
common
theme
of
the
designer
in
charge
of
it
takes
a
look
at
it
and
says
you
know.
Oh
dear
god,
this
is
a
wall
of
text.
It's
really
intimidating
I'm,
going
to
take
the
wall
of
text
and
disappear.
O
It
and
you
know,
turn
it
to
some
kind
of
gradual
drill
down
cascading
menus
blah
blah,
which
you
know
it
does
make.
It
look
nicer,
but
I
really
like
the
wall
of
text,
because
I
can
I
can
grab
the
wall
of
text.
You
know,
I
I
know
the
thing
I
want.
Is
there
somewhere
put
into
my
browser
search
thing
boom?
O
C
Q
Alyssa
Cooper,
just
I,
just
want
to
plant
up
one
additional
seat
in
people's
heads,
while
you're
thinking
about
this
something
that
Greg
and
I
have
discussed
at
some
length,
though
other
thing
that
we
don't
have
on
the
either
the
current
website
or
the
new
website
is
any
way
to
track
usage
like
none
whatsoever.
So
we
don't
know
how
many
people
visit.
Q
The
website,
which
pages
are
most
frequently
visited
the
path
by
which
people
arrive
at
the
site
like
whether
they
actually
do
search
and
eventually
find
the
page
you're
looking
for
or
whether
they
just
go
to
the
homepage
and
navigate.
We
don't
have
any
of
this
information
and
that's
for
a
bunch
of
historical
reasons,
very
a
real
concerns
about
privacy
in
which
kind
of
tracking
technology
would
we
use
and
we're
with
the
day
to
go
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
Q
Q
You
know
whether
it's
really
meeting
its
goals
other
than
you
know:
I'm
chaining,
qualitative
feedback
from
people,
so
I
personally
think
that
there
is
a
way
that
we
could
add
some
use,
the
tracking
that
is
privacy
friendly
and
gives
people
the
ability
to
not
have
their
own
data
involved
in
in
the
usage
tracking
if
they
don't
want
to
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
there's
some
available
tools
that
do
this.
But
if
people
I
think
this
is
a
good
crowd
to
kind
of
benchmark
that
that
intuition.
R
The
the
basic
idea
is
this:
that
there
are
some
working
groups
that
are
heavily
reliant
on
github,
where
they're
doing
almost
everything
we
github.
There
are
a
bunch
of
working
groups
where
github
is
not
used
at
all
and
there's
a
bunch
in
the
middle,
where
maybe
one
or
two
documents
is
on
github.
Maybe
it's.
R
The
working
group
has
a
few
documents
on
github,
but
maybe
it's
just
the
authors
who
are
using
github
on
their
own
and
such
like
that
there's
a
wide
wide
variety
of
usages
and
they're
sort
of
all
valid,
but
there
are
some
problems
with
the
usages,
and
so
we
had
to
pre
sentation.
So
I
hope
everyone
actually
looks
at
the
presentations
that
were
given
in
the
boov.
You
know
they're
on
there
on
the
track.
Already
one
of
them
was
by
mark
nottingham,
which
wasn't
about
github.
R
In
specific,
it
was
about
working
groups
using
tools
and
what
are
sort
of
the
requirements.
What
do
you
need
to
get
from
them,
because
every
tool
is
there
to
make
something
better
and
every
tool
that
makes
something
better
make
something
worse,
and
you
hope
that
you
know
that
there
is
an
increase
in
one
side
or
the
other,
and
github
has
a
very,
very
sharp
learning
curve,
so
it
had
better
also
have
a
fairly
sharp
benefit
curve
as
well,
and
then
second
presentation.
Well,
actually
the
first
presentation
was
me:
where
I
did
a
roll
call?
R
I
had
asked
people
on
the
mailing
list.
How
are
you
using
github,
so
I
did
roll
call,
so
marks
was
the
second
presentation.
Third
presentation
was
Martin
Thompson,
whose
name
I've
spelled
long
now,
approximately
half
the
time
on
specifically
about
using
github
in
working
groups
and
the
interesting
thing
there
is
that
both
mark
and
Martin
pretty
much
know
each
other
through
github
in
HTTP
biss,
which
is
the
one
working
group
which
is
using
it
all
the
time
they
have
their
working
group,
page
they're,
very,
very
heavy.
R
You
know
github
commitment,
and
yet
the
two
of
them
disagree
on
a
fair
number
of
the
usages
so
which
again
shows
that
you
know
when
we
do
tools,
not
everyone
likes
the
way.
We
do
tools
and
such
like
that.
So
then
there
was
a
lot
of
open
mic
time
which
actually
went
surprisingly
well,
given
that
this
was
a
bunch
of
pinyon
people,
and
this
was
about
tools
so
the
biggest
concern
that
came
up
during
the
my
conversation,
if
I
can
synthesize
it
because
it
came
from
many
people
is
this.
R
We
have
mailing
lists
currently
which,
where
we
have
discussion
once
you
start
using
github,
it
adds
not
one
but
two
additional
places
where
discussion
might
happen
for
if
you're
not
familiar
with
github.
The
easiest
thing
to
know
is
github
has
its
own
issue
tracker.
So,
just
like
you
know,
pre
github
days
when,
when
working
groups
had
their
mailing
list
and
using
tracking
in
the
track
trapper
from
the
tools
team,
now
there
was
two
places
you
could
have
and
how
do
you
coordinate
them?
R
So
this
is
a
known
problem
that
preceded
get
up,
but
github
has
an
additional
place,
a
very
attractive
place
for
having
conversation
which
are
pull
request.
If
you're
not
familiar
the
pull
request,
if
you
ever
told
somebody
online
on
send
text,
pull
request
is
the
easy
way
to
send
text.
It's
actually
not
easy
to
get
the
text
into
the
pull
request,
but
it
makes
a
trivial
for
the
authors
to
accept
the
text,
but
there
is
discussion
in
pull
requests
as
well.
R
So
you
can
say
please
change
from
22
and
you
know
do
that
as
a
pull
request,
and
anyone
can
comment
on
that
saying
you
know,
and
even
though
it
goes
in
the
exact
place
where
you
want
it
in
the
draft
and
it's
easy
to
see
in
the
gifs,
someone
can
say
you're
being
Anglo
centric.
We
should
actually
use
a
different
word.
R
No,
we
shouldn't
you're,
just
trolling
you,
and
so
now
we
have
three
places
for
conversation
to
happen
it,
and
so
the
folks
at
the
mic
line,
were
the
biggest
concern
was
how
do
you
know
where
to
go?
Look
at
the
conversation
without
having
to
go
to
all
of
these
plus.
Are
we
losing
some
of
the
value
of
having
all
of
the
conversation
in
the
place
where
we
can
replay
it
easily,
meaning
the
mailing
list?
So
there
are
tools
that
might
be
able
to
be
used
with
that
such,
but
that
was
really
the
big
concern.
R
The
second
biggest
concern
I
thought
was
the
fact
that,
because
there
is
a
learning
curve
for
github
and
it's
it's
very
non-trivial
I
mean
if
you're
going
to
use
github
with
get.
Then
now
you
have
two
sharp
learning
curves,
but
even
if
you're,
using
github
without
get
the
user
interface
is
a
little
bit
daunting,
it
was
clearly
written
or
programming
geeks,
which
we
are
not
all
programming
geeks
and,
in
fact,
for
what
we're
using
this,
for
it's
actually
for
documentation
as
you're
writing
documentation.
R
You
have
different
concerns
about
collaboration
than
you
do
when
you
are
talking
about
programs,
you
know
typically
so,
for
those
who
don't
know
get
was
developed
for
the
Linux
kernel.
In
fact,
it
was
a
hilarious
tweet
this
morning
that
says
that
github
looks
like
something
that
was
designed
by
the
guy
who
designed
the
Linux
kernel,
because
you
know,
if
you
don't
know
it,
you
know
they're
sort
of
keeping
you
out
once
you
know
what
your
on
the
inside.
R
What
this
means
is
that
in
there
there
is
a
huge
class
of
people
who
understand
github
who
are
outside
the
ITF
I
mean
it's
not
an
ietf
tool.
It
really
is
very
popular
in
the
programming
world,
so
there's
a
huge
class
of
people
who
know
it
who
actually
have
started
coming
into
the
IETF
process,
because
they
search
in
the
github
search
thing
for
something
that
they're
doing,
especially
if
they're
programmed
to
something-
and
they
are
not
our
level
of
network
programmers.
But
there
are
network
programmers.
They
find
an
internet
draft.
R
R
These
are
the
kind
of
people
we
want,
but
by
inviting
those
people
in
if
we
are
becoming
github
centric,
we
are
also
estranging
the
old
farts
who
think
that
mailing
lists
are
the
right
way
to
do
things,
and
so
there
is
somewhat
of
a
culture
clash.
It's
not
an
either/or
thing,
but
if
we
make
it
not
an
either/or
thing
now
we
have
multiple
places
to
discuss
it.
So
how
you.
R
We
use
github
to
bring
in
new
people
and
to
make
the
current
people
more
effective,
or
should
we
not
be
using
this
as
a
tool
so
much
and
such
like
that,
so
that
was
some
of
the
other
my
clients?
Oh,
so
that's
my
summary
of
what
happened.
It
was
only
an
hour,
long
cough
which
is
good.
It's
not
working.
It
is
not
a
working
group
farming
Boff,
both
mark
and
Martin's
drafts,
may
or
may
not
move
forwards
depending
on
if
they
feel
like
it.
R
This
isn't
meant
to
be
the
new
process
document,
because
a
lot
of
people
in
fact
will
prompt
a
lot
of
working
groups
will
probably
never
use
github,
and
some
working
groups
will
dive
in
heavily.
It
is
really
sort
of
an
orthogonal
tool
to
the
way
we're
thinking,
but
as
working
groups
want
to
start
using
it,
how
can
we
leverage
the
knowledge
of
the
other
folks
who
are
already
using
it
such
like
that?
So
I
assume
I
still
have
some
mike
time.
Yeah.
S
E
A
G
Rick
Taylor,
my
question:
isn't
about
github
it's
about
github.
Why
I
I
went
to
the
bathroom
is
fascinating,
some
really
good
questions,
but
should
we
be
looking
at
using
a
third-party
up
to
host
all
this?
Or
can
we
just
look
at
the
best
practice
that
everyone
loves
the
get
up
and
say
right,
great
we've
got
track
practice
tickets
track
does
get
integration,
I
mean
I,
run
it
right
when
I
come
in.
You
know
why
not,
why
don't
always
host
get
and
we
can
get
some
extra
stuff
we're
doing
an
ITF
website
uplift?
G
R
Additional
tools
is:
have
we
sort
of
over
magnified
on
that
one,
and
that
I
mean
we
can't
have
that
discussion
here,
but
yes,
that
that
does
there?
Is
that
question
I'm?
So
going
to
your
question,
though,
of
you
know
what
else
is
needed
and
such
is
there
a
feeling
that
tutorials
are
needed,
or
is
there
a
feeling
that
we
have
too
many
different
levels
at
once
so
anyways
my
client,
so.
T
Paul,
thank
you.
That's
good
summary
I
think
I
wanted
to
add
one
value
piece
isn't
in
the
tutorial
and
yet
Evan
just
just
talked
about
how
it
can
add
to
the
process.
My
experience
has
been
that
doing
the
document.
Development
in
a
revision
control
system
has
immense
value
when
you
get
to
the
end
of
a
complicated
document,
really
like
last
call
stage
when
new
people
come
in
and
they
say
what
about
X.
T
What
we've
always
done
is
somebody
says
we
talked
about
that,
find
it
in
the
mailing
archive
somewhere
and
now
you
go
to
the
document,
you
get
blame
you
find
out.
What's
change
it
and
went
in
you
find
an
issue
with
the
discussions
ready
just
to
that
topic
and
it's
much
more
defensible
process
and
and
how
to
check
your
own
assumptions.
One
tiny
little
how
to
niche
really
commonly
these
documents
are
just
in
markdown,
and
you
can
just
make
suggestions
right
through
the
github
interface.
T
U
D
Yeah
I
did
a
lot
of
working
on
github
in
w3c
and
it
worked
so
fantastically
I
know
there's
problems,
but
it's
it
really.
Barley
improves
what
you're
doing
and
to
all
of
Patrick's
points
with
regards
to
tutorials
or
second,
that
the
Travis
stuff
would
be
great,
but
just
a
little
bit
of
process
for
some
new
chairs
getting
started.
E
D
A
B
A
The
question
about
the
guidance
to
give
people
versus
do
we
need
not
necessarily
process,
but
do
we
need,
and
you
know,
do
we
need
certain
structures
or
certain
rules
for
how
people
use
a
github
to
do
I,
ETF
stuff,
and
that
was
left
as
an
open
question
then
and
I
do
believe.
It's
still
sort
of
an
open
question
up
so.
D
D
A
V
Ron
gondwana
I
just
wanted
to
I
guess
counter
the
idea
of
ITF
running
their
own
git
repository
our
own
git
repository
and
own
tooling,
around
it,
it's
very
insular,
compared
to
being
on
github,
where
other
people
can
discover
it.
When
we
were
talking
about
the
website
being
discoverable
people
outside
the
ITF,
if
we're
using
all
in-house
tooling,
it's
a
lot
harder
for
people
in
other
communities
to
discover.
Oh
okay,.
R
G
R
More
so
there's
been
plenty
reigns
polling
as
well.
The
one
thing
that
I
would
like
to
emphasize
on
this
is
that
the
reason
we're
doing
this
is
to
make
our
document
processing
better,
and
there
are
a
wide
variety
of
beliefs
in
how
that
happens.
I
mean
Patrick
brought
up
a
real,
interesting
point,
which
is,
if
you
ignored
github.
The
way
we've
been
doing
in
the
past
has
worked
for
some
things
and
it
failed
for
others.
Maybe
github
fixes
some
of
those
or
not,
but
we
have
to
look
at
the
big
picture
so
right.
Okay,
thank.
A
You
all
I'd
also
encourage
this
conversation
to
continue
on
the
working
group
chairs
mailing
list,
so
we're
going
to
move
really
quickly
through
the
next
two
pieces
of
the
agenda,
which
was
to
talk
about
some
of
the
education
and
mentoring
activities
and
also
to
talk
about
the
newcomer
stuff.
So
well,
you
know
the
didn't
anyway,.
A
Sorry
so
we
do
have
a
education
and
mentoring.
Directorate
that's
been
established
now
the
this
all
went
out
on
the
note
so
that
you
can
read
about
it.
The
key
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
today
is
that
there
are
a
number
of
different
projects
at
this
entails,
and
a
lot
of
this
has
to
do
with
projects
that
are
ongoing
and
already
well
underway,
the
under
the
sort
of
the
grouping
of
education.
We
have
tutorials,
both
face-to-face
and
online
we've
had
in
the
last
two
IITs.
A
We
had
a
number
of
excellent
tutorials
and
I'm
really
pleased
with
the
way
the
tutorials
are
the
direction
that
they're
moving
in.
We
can
always
use
suggestions
for
new
tutorials
I
think
about
a
year
ago,
Benoit
in
particular,
was
telling
us
we
need
to
do
a
better
job
of
focusing
on
the
technologies
of
the
IETF
is
developing
I,
think
the
DNS
privacy
and
quick
tutorials
both
had
excellent
turnouts
and
I
think
that's
a
reinforcement
of
the
point
there
also
be
on.
We
there's
a
number
of
there's
some
ongoing
document,
maintenance
and
text.
A
That's
around
and
like
Greg
had
the
text
about
about
the
IETF
and
things
like
that.
Some
of
that
that
needs
to
be
moderated
working
of
chairs
lunch
forum.
Well,
that's
this
form,
and
it's
particularly
your
forum
to
do
with,
as
you
wish,
and
so
suggestions
and
volunteers
to
discuss
to
lead
discussions
on
topics
would
be
very
welcome.
A
One
of
the
ones
I
thought
would
be
really
interesting
to
have
is
I
saw
the
discussion
from
nottingham
the
email
he
sent
to
the
working
group
chairs
list
about
the
the
hybrid
of
the
virtual
and
physical.
They
did
an
interim
mating
and
they
did
a
really
good
job
with
the
facilitating
remote
participation.
During
that
interim
meeting
and
I
think
some
discussion
about
how
we
do
that
better
with
for
all
of
us
would
be
helpful.
A
The
second
category
of
projects
we
have
is
what
I'm
currently
calling
newcomers
outreach,
and
this
is
things
like
the
newcomers
meet
and
greet,
and
also
the
Secretariat
does
a
dinner
for
newcomers.
We
have
to
mentoring
programs
right
now.
We
have
the
speed
mentoring,
which,
if
you
haven't
done
this
I,
would
strongly
encourage
you
it's
only
an
hour
and
it's
not
as
as
painful
as
I
originally
imagined.
It
would
be.
It's
actually
quite
interesting.
A
I
did
talk
a
former
IETF
earth
at
current
IHF
for
a
long
time,
a
friend
of
mine
into
doing
this,
and
he
said
it
was
about
thirty
three
percent
awkward
and
sixty-six
percent.
Okay,
so,
and
he's
a
pretty
shy
guy,
so
I
think
it
works
much
better
than
I
ever
ever,
imagined
that
it
would
and
it
gives
newcomers
a
chance
to
have
a
few
faces.
A
And
then
we
had
the
regular
mentoring
program,
the
numbers
and
that
had
been
going
up
and
you've
been
seeing
a
number
of
requests
from
malini
on
the
mailing
list
for
two
short
four
matches.
I
think
we
have
between
2025
this
time
we
had
somewhere
in
the
high
teens
last
time,
and
one
of
our
objectives
is
to
do
a
little
bit
better
job
of
reporting
out
some
metrics
on
what
all
of
these
various
programs
are
and
how
they're
reaching
people
there
is.
There
are
a
number
there's
a
lot
of
activity.
A
If
you're,
following
the
V
Meath
mailing
list,
there's
a
bunch
of
activity
around
remote
hubs
and
community
hubs
and
those
types
of
activities
and
the
final
went
on
there-
is
this
assessment
metrics
and
measurement
not
talking
about
a
heavyweight
metrics.
But
sometimes
you
need
to
be
able
to
judge
whether
what
you're
I
mean
everybody
lives
in
a
world
of
limited
resources.
A
E
So
I
got
roped
into
the
speed
mentoring
this
time
and
I
agree
with
the
assessment
of
it
was
probably
two-thirds,
really
good
and
one-third.
Strangely
awkward,
but
I
found
the
newcomers
meet
and
greet
not
terribly
effective
in
part,
because
newcomers
tend
to
wander
aimlessly
and
in
part,
because
us
old
fogies
tend
to
drink
among
ourselves.
The
joy
the
amount
of
drinking.
E
Here
nor
there,
but
that
we
end
up
talking
to
each
other,
which
is
to
be
expected
some
way
to
hook
those
two
events
together
and
maybe
sort
of
the
nice
thing
about
the
speed
mentoring.
Was
it
forced
us
old
fogies
to
talk
to
some
of
the
newcomers
immediately
in
a
very
controlled
context
and
having
that
slide
into
a
more
general
social
thing,
might
make
both
more
effective.
So.
A
You
actually
sort
of
did
a
foreshadowing
of
my
next
set
of
conversations
which
was
okay.
I
just
gave
you
a
really
high
level
snapshot
of
what
the
education
and
mentoring
activities
are,
and
some
of
those
are
focused
at
newcomers,
and
some
of
them
are
not
so
now.
What
I
want
to
do
is
take
a
quick
thread
through
what
the
newcomer
efforts
are,
and
I
also
want
to
want
us
to
think
about
what
are
our
true
object?
What
our
objectives
here?
A
What
are
we
trying
to
get
out
of
the
newcomers
and
we'll
get
to
that
in
a
minute,
but
first
of
all,
just
sort
of
step
through
what
the
newcomer
related
activities
are.
So,
first
of
all,
there's
the
website
the
online
information.
How
does
somebody
who
knows
nothing
about
the
ietf
that
plans
to
come,
get
the
information
that
they
need?
So
a
lot
of
the
improvements
there
will
come
through
the
result
of
the
website
redesign.
The
next
thing
that
they
get
is
a
newcomer
email
from
the
secretary
and
the
newcomer
email
from
the
secretary.
A
It
gives
them
pointers
to
a
number
of
things,
including
things
like
the
mentoring
program
and
tell
somewhere
to
sign
up
and
those
kinds
of
things,
so
that
the
next
thing
that
Newt
that
impacts
newcomers
is
the
mentoring
program,
and
this
is
one
where
you
actually
sign
up.
You
identify
what
you're
interested
in,
and
the
mentoring
coordinators
match
you
with
which
match
you
with
somebody
from
the
IHF
community
who
has
similar
interests
and
you
may
develop.
You
know
you
may
just
exchange
one
or
two
emails
or
have
a
conversation,
or
you
may
develop
a
much
deeper.
A
John's
has
been
doing
for
the
last
couple,
I
chest
and
a
really
nice
job
on
that
the
tutorial
is
a
has
been
recast
a
bit,
it's
shorter
than
it
used
to
be,
and
it's
it's
really
more
about
pointing
you
to
where
you
need
to
find
the
things
that
you
need
to
do,
and
it's
less
about
that.
The
long
history
of
the
IETF
that
material
is
still
all
there,
but
but
the
the
way
the
newcomers
tutorial
is
currently
being
defined
is
slightly
different
than
that.
A
Then
we
have
the
speed
mentoring,
which
we've
already
we
were
talking
about
a
little
bit
and
that
the
real
objective
of
this
is
is
not
so
much
to
match
people
with
other
people,
specifically
related
on
interests
or
working
groups,
but
basically
to
get
folks
talking
to
people
in
the
IETF
and
and
occasionally
you'll
make
interesting
connections.
I
know
I've
heard
a
couple
stories
from
people
this
week
who
are
very
excited
about
being
able
to
connect
person
a
two-person
be
based
on
the
conversation
they
had
in
speed
mentoring.
A
So
then,
the
question
that
newcomers
meet
and
greet
is
next
and
and
Pete
completely
teed
up
the
conversation
about
newcomers,
meeting
greed.
We
were
having
a
conversation
about
whether
this
is
really
a
useful
event
or
not,
or
is
it
really
more?
A
working
group
chair
social
and
so
the
witch
which
has
valid-
and
you
know
a
valid
purpose.
I
did
also
hear
somebody
say
something
about
you.
A
A
What's
the
purpose
of
the
newcomers
meet
greet
and
is
it
effective
and
is
it
meeting
that
purpose
or
not
and
one
of
the
pieces
of
feedback
that
I
did
get
which
because
I
was
leaning
towards
the
this
is
not
really
very
effective
and
the
speed
mentoring
is
doing
more
of
what
we
actually
want
to
do
there?
The
newcomers
make
great
the
speed.
Mentoring
is
more
about
meeting
in
you
know
various
random
individuals,
whereas
the
newcomers
make
great
is
provided
that
you
have
the
structure
and
the
you
know
you
will
reach
out
and
do
this.
A
You
know
I'm
interested
in
this
working
group
chair
or
I'm
interested
in
this
area
director,
and
so
you
can.
You
know
you
can
pair
them
up
that
way
in
that
in
that
context,
whereas
you
can't
expect
all
of
the
working
group
chairs
and
and
the
you
know,
all
of
the
leadership
to
come
to
the
speed
mentoring.
A
You
know
you
get
a
much
better
chance
of
hitting
the
one
person
you
are
interested
in
if
there's
some
sort
of
forum
like
a
new
comers,
meet
and
greet,
and
then
finally,
the
Secretariat
orders
a
newcomers,
casual
dinner,
which
is
just
basically
a
you
know,
do
your
own
thing
if
you
want
to
come
kind
of
thing,
so
those
are
all
the
current
newcomers
efforts.
So
basically,
what's
the
point
you
know
what
are
the
eject?
What
are
our
objectives
for?
Facilitating
newcomers
do
want
to
increase
the
number
of
drafts.
A
You
know
I'm,
not
sure
that
we,
you
know
you
don't
want
to
just
decrease
the
number
of
drafts.
You
want
to
increase
the
right
kinds
of
drafts
that
are
addressing
the
problems
we're
trying
to
solve.
So
you
want.
You
know
you,
how
do
you
measure
whether
that
is
a
good
thing
or
a
bad
thing?
Increased
volunteers
prescribing
reviewing
editing
those
kinds
of
things:
increased
participation
in
working
groups
and
increased
attendance
from
you
know
for
revenue.
A
So
my
question
for
you
all
and
given
that
it's
1246-
and
we
have
about
four
minutes
for
this
conversation-
is
what
are
some
of
the
metrics
for
measuring
how
effective
newcomer
efforts
are,
and
also
we've
been
very
focused
on
the
the
newcomer
activities
thus
far
in
in
making
the
newcomers
happy
and
meeting
their
needs.
And
so
my
question
to
the
work
of
your
chairs
is:
what
do
you
all
need
from
newcomers
or
you
know?
What
do
you
wish?
They
knew
that
they
don't
know.
R
I
want
to
go
off
slide
here.
Is
there
any
effort
to
ask
people
who
came
to
one
IETF
and
don't
come
to
the
next
one
or
don't
come
to
one
for
a
year?
Why
didn't
they
and
the
reason
I'm
asking
is,
is
that
I
think
that
the
newcomers
meet
and
greet
works?
I've
had
newcomers
be
very
happy
about
it
such
like
that,
and
I
think
that
overall
and
by
the
way
I
would
certainly
reverse
your
list
here.
Increasing
attendance
and
participation
is
way
more
important.
Getting
these
people
to
be
involved.
A
A
We
basically
incorporated
the
newcomers
portion
into
the
main
survey,
and
then
we
asked
them
which
activities
they
were
interested
in.
The
next
step
for
us
is
to
take
a
look
back
at
how
many
you
know
how
many
of
these
newcomers
are
staying
and
what
are
they
doing
and
we
don't.
We
haven't
actually
pulled
that
data
together
yet,
but
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about,
but
also
we
spent
a
lot
of
times.
I've
got
it.
We.
We
really
think
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
that
particular
aspect.
A
W
Barry
that
2
comments,
one
is
about
the
new
comers
meet
and
greet
I
agree
with
Carly
I
think
it's
effective,
but
I
think
what
matters
is
what
the
newcomers
think
that
but
I've
certainly
talked
with
lots
of
newcomers
at
this
one
and
most
of
them
and
and
I've
introduced
them
to
the
working
group
chairs
and
area
directors
that
they're
interested
in
seeing
and
that
sort
of
thing.
What
I
find
the
trouble
with
it
is
that
it's
always
way
too
crowded
to
move
around
and
often
way
too
noisy
to
talk
and
I
had
a
thought.
A
W
Other
is
about
the
last
question
here
and
one
thing
I
think
we
could
do
that.
We
occasionally
get
newcomers
who
are
ready
to
jump
in
and
talk
a
lot,
but
we
often
get
a
lot
of
them
who
sit
there
quietly
and
are
shy
about
it,
and
maybe
working
group
chairs
should
ask
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
Do
we
have
newcomers
in
the
meeting
see
if
a
few
people
raise
their
hands
and
then
encourage
them
to
get
up
to
the
microphone
and
participate
actively
I
think
we
could
make
a
big.