WG Chairs training (Re: modest suggestion for how to proceed)

Margaret Wasserman mrw at windriver.com
Thu Mar 27 14:34:58 CET 2003



>>And, several of us are already working to address one aspect of
>>this problem -- WG chairs training.
>
>there are actually more hairs to this dog too....

Yes, there are indeed...

As you know, we held a meeting in SF (attended many by WG/BOF chairs and
several IESG members) to discuss this issue. We covered the general topic
of WG chairs training and resources (including training sessions, mentoring,
web sites, FAQs, tools, etc.).  The hope is that WG chairs will take some
responsibility for improving our own training and resources.

Notes from this meeting will be available on the wgchairs mailing list and
on the wgchairs-training mailing list as soon as I get around to posting
them...  It would probably be more useful to have this discussion on the
wgchairs-training list, if you are willing to post your thoughts there
(info about this list was sent, by me, to the wgchairs list on 18-Mar).

Just as a side note, I actually prefer the term "organizational development"
to training, because it doesn't have the classroom connotations that you
mention later.  However, the phrase "organizational development" may be too
corporate-speak to be widely embraced by the IETF.  Alternatives?

>instituting training can be based on two different theories:
>
>- Training a pool of people so that they are available for work when needed
>- Training people who are already working so that they work better

I agree, and we are generally taking the second approach...  We don't
really have the option of using the first approach, since there is
no way to know who may later become a WG chair.  However, our web
resources are visible to everyone, so folks can prepare themselves (if
they choose to) before volunteering or accepting.  We also open up the
introductory WG chairs training sessions to BOF chairs.

>The first one requires that there is time enough between training and the 
>onset of work; it also implies (at least hints strongly) that one should 
>record the dossiers of people so that one knows who has received training 
>and which have not.
>
>The second one imposes no such requirement, but requires us to live with 
>active working group chairs who have no training (didn't get it yet) and 
>working group chairs that have their own ideas on how to work (because 
>they've got experience with what things have worked for them); the 
>appropriate training methods may be thought of as dialogue and experience 
>exchange rather than the "classroom" that tends to appear in people's 
>minds when the word "training" is used.

Here, our agreement starts to break down.  I agree that there are two
major classes of organizational development:

         - Formal training, typically achieved through "classroom"
                 instruction and/or tutorials.
         - Informal experience sharing, typically achieved through
                 (formal or informal) mentoring or open discussion
                 sessions.

However, I think that both forms have roles to play for initial training
and for on-going development.  It is true (IMO) that the value shifts
from formal training to informal experience sharing as people become
more experienced and only need help with exceptional situations, etc.
But, I don't believe that the shift is absolute -- old hands may still
benefit from formal training on new processes, tools, etc.

I also think that you may underestimate the value of using common
terminology, processes and tools across an organization, particularly
as an organization gets larger.  I know that there is a fine line
between commonality and indoctrination, but I haven't heard any feedback
that indicates that our current training programs have approached that
line.

I don't think that we need to compile dossiers on formal training
attendance for it to be useful.  In fact, quite the opposite...  Our
current training is completely voluntary, and people attend it (some
more than once) because they believe that formal training will be
valuable _to them_.  It is a known fact that some people benefit more
from formal training than others, and I think that we should make
a decent set of training resources (of both types) available, and trust
WG chairs to engage in the type and extent of training that they need
to be successful in their jobs.

>I think the second model is the one that's possible for the IETF; if we 
>choose it consciously rather than trying to impose thinking from the other 
>style of training, I think we may achieve more benefit from it.

Why do you view this as an either/or choice?

>>One of my top goals in the "process" effort is spin out several
>>small, tactical problems that can be addressed in the short
>>term, while we work on longer-term problems.
>
>agreed. I am looking forward to seeing an approach on this.

Working...

>>I do realize that this will have the affect of making our current
>>situation more tolerable and lessening the perceived need for
>>more drastic longer-term measures... Thoughts?
>
>if we can get a community acceptance that larger changes are needed to 
>address structural problems before things get calmed down to the point 
>where it's almost tolerable to live with for another 2 years (at which 
>time the frog will be truly cooked), I don't think there's a conflict.
>
>In other words - I'd like to get the process for structural change on the 
>rails quickly.

I agree.

Margaret





More information about the Problem-statement mailing list