Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

[Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[e-mail]>]

Mitar,
I am on the road and hence my replies are far too cryptic :) - and not
formal or detailed..

I got some offline emails from Barath Raghavan who knows you - so I have
now understood what you are trying to say..

I think Jose can probably reply in detail about these questions since he
has been working hard on this draft..

my assumption was coauthors like Bart and Leandro have done surveys before
via the confine project and this could have been reflected in the
draft..maybe they can comment..

arjuna
On 12 Apr 2016 02:12, "Mitar" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback...
>
> That is an interesting field work approach. So anthropologists should
> just sit in their offices waiting for people to come to them?
>
> You are working on describing community networks, then it would be
> useful to reach to community networks to be able to study them and get
> their input. For example, this is a fairly recent project I remember
> seeing messages around:
>
> http://p2pvalue.eu/
>
> I got surveys from them, even interview requests, all based on organic
> dissemination of information through various means.
>
> In the Internet era it is not so hard to ask around a bit for one
> e-mail about a survey or feedback to circulate around. I got it now. I
> responded. It seems it is too late. But it did happen. So with some
> effort it could happen also in previously.
>
> > I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation?
>
> I wrote a longer e-mail with all the details, where I point many
> issues, smaller and larger, but the main issue I have is that
> community networks are mostly presented through the economic
> perspective. That they exist because of economic incentives. This is
> like saying that people participate in free software projects because
> software is gratis. It might be, but there is an enormous set of other
> reasons as well.
>
> Frankly, if you really wanted to do this right, you should do a survey
> and ask participants in community networks for their motivations, why
> they are doing that. Then you get those free form responses and read
> them and create categories. It is pretty normal social sciences
> approach. And then once you figure this out you write it out in a
> document. We found out this and this. Alternatively, you can cite
> other studies doing that instead. Do you have such studies which
> analyze motivations behind people doing community networks?
>
> What I did was just give you some new datapoints to show you that your
> data is lacking. Even I do not know all the reasons people
> participate. But I know from my long participation in these networks,
> that your approach is too simplistic, lack major points, and
> especially if it is meant as a document to help wider Internet
> community get understanding of this community networks (and other
> alternative networks) phenomena, then it is doing a disservice because
> after reading your document people could conclude "oh, they just want
> cheap Internet", which is very far of from what is really the heart of
> the community.
>
> Yes, often community networks are the only way to get to the Internet
> for many people, but besides being just Internet access, they know
> that it is critical for participants being equal and empowered
> members. It is important that it is a community. That when a peer
> comes to your door to help you mount an antenna, you not just fix the
> antenna, but you become friends, you talk, drink, eat. When you will
> do a similar thing with your commercial WISP serviceperson? Maybe, but
> probably not.
>
>
> Mitar
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>