Subject: [Diversity] do we need corporate IETF educators/chef-de-delgation?

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:31:01 -0500

On an IETF WG mailing list, there was an email today from a subscriber from a
major router vendor.    My guess, a co-op student.  Certainly a younger
person with little experience.  The person asked the list how they could
"unfriend" the WG list.  (Had they said the normal words for getting off the
list, which I don't say in my first paragraph, the administrivia filters
might have kicked in)

While it sure sets of my "endless september" frustration,  I would rather
take this as a teaching experience.   I *know* that this vendor has people
who are specifically trying to educate and train their people on how the
IETF works.  I am going to claim that I am neither patient nor culturally
sensitive enough (yet!) to educate this person with enough compassion.
(I would definitely want to dive deep with this person, and explain email vs
facebook, and I'd want a whiteboard to do that)

While the IETF has prided itself in being about individual and not
organizations, and that we don't have "delegations", I still wonder if it
wouldn't be useful to have a place where issues/opportunities relating to
individuals from larger organizations could be funneled.

ps: the unfriend email is also marked confidential, so naturally, I can't
    share it :-)

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:50:29 -0800

Hi Michael,
>facebook, and I'd want a whiteboard to do that)

The person wanted to leave the mailing list.  I would get that done 
instead of turning it into an educational exercise.  The latter tends 
to be misconstrued.

>individuals from larger organizations could be funneled.

I am not sure what the above is asking for.  Is it about providing 
educational material or tutorials for large organizations?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:20:57 +0000

We need educator to senior participants. The education is not about
managing because mostly done well. The education to seniors will be to make
IETF more open more understood more simple and more diverse.

If a message came saying unfriend then it may mean that IETF was not
reacting as friends do, which is a big problem.

AB

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, SM wrote:

> instead of turning it into an educational exercise.  The latter tends to be
> misconstrued.
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:33:26 -0500

> ps: the unfriend email is also marked confidential, so naturally, I can't

I do not have much sympathy for confidentiality notices in mails sent to
public mailing lists. For those interested, this is probably the mail
that Michael is talking about.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg08752.html

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:36:16 -0500

> The person wanted to leave the mailing list.  I would get that done instead
    > of turning it into an educational exercise.  The latter tends to be
    > misconstrued.

If this were my grandmother, I would simply do this.
The person figured out how to find the list, how to subscribe, how to reply
to the confirm email, and may well be a developer working in the bowels of
this company.

Isn't this a person that we want to identify and bring into the fold?

    > educational material or tutorials for large organizations?

No, it's about be able go to www.ietf.org/enterprise-delegation-contacts and 
finding the name of the person in the CTO office of Big-Router-Company, and
say, "Hey, maybe this person needs your internal IETF training session"

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:43:00 -0500

Let’s setup a wiki where *individuals* at companies can put themselves down as “go to” people. Not strictly as “go to for Huawei” [to give a small example], but just “go to.” Over time, people will learn to go to the “go to” wiki to find mentors. Better yet, you might even find someone from your own company.

A ‘chef-de-delegation’ would be a 1,000% internal-only, not-to-be-managed-by-the-IETF thing. Maybe something we could suggest, but not something to institutionalize.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:40:02 -0800

Hi Michael,
>to the confirm email, and may well be a developer working in the bowels of

Yes.

People still have problems unsubscribing from mailing lists.

>Isn't this a person that we want to identify and bring into the fold?

In this case the person could be pointed to additional information so 
that he or she can decide whether to join the fold.  You identified 
the person.  Someone (not you) would have to follow-up on that.

>say, "Hey, maybe this person needs your internal IETF training session"

Eric Burger suggested having a Wiki with the information.  The IAOC 
could ask about that as it likely knows the contact persons for those 
big companies.  A Wiki can be set up if there is interest to publish 
the information.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:22:57 -0500

Eric Burger <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > Let’s setup a wiki where *individuals* at companies can put themselves
    > down as “go to” people. Not strictly as “go to for Huawei” [to give a
    > small example], but just “go to.” Over time, people will learn to go to
    > the “go to” wiki to find mentors. Better yet, you might even find
    > someone from your own company. 

I'm all for this, and this is really what I want.

    > A ‘chef-de-delegation’ would be a 1,000% internal-only,
    > not-to-be-managed-by-the-IETF thing. Maybe something we could suggest,
    > but not something to institutionalize. 

Exactly... but it might be better understood by the corporation.