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

[Jon Crowcroft <[e-mail]>]

I think inclusivity is by definition called for in any gaia work.

the points you made in your original long message are covered to some
extent in the current doc, but having more data points from other
countries/cultures is, in my view, extremely important

just on your very first point, for example, about altruism - all too often,
the "consensus" in a lot of tech/geek (dare i say neo-liberal) world is
that you have to have monetary incentives (e.g. market will fix things is a
mantra in the IETF) and yet the evidence from many studies is that most the
world ticks over on unpaid labour (parenting, housework, caring etc) and
things like common interest - so the more examples of this in community
networks, the more we can dispel the myth that you have to build a
for-profit system - the myth of the tragedy of the commons (oft-repeated in
ignorance of how long the common grazing lands in mongolia persisted
(literally, millenia)) is quite pervasive

on the technical and deployment side, differences matter too, since
diversity allows us to see how the design space has been (succesfully)
explored and would allow new potential deployment efforts to choose a
better fit for the given environment....

maybe for now, if you have this written up, the current draft could add a
reference?

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Mitar <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I understand the scope. And my comments mostly relate to the community
> networks aspect of this document. As you are providing overview of
> community networks as part of alternative networks, I provided some
> feedback on that as I am familiar with those, more than other forms of
> alternative networks.
>
> As such, I find description of community networks as found in this
> document imprecise and incomplete.
>
> It is interesting that you are counting Freifunk and wlan slovenija to
> crowdshared approach? Why is that? At least for wlan slovenija I can
> say that we are first a community network, but it is true that we are
> probably a bit different one to guifi.net because we started from
> urban areas and a position of abundance. But this is just one of those
> many factors of diversity in community networks.
>
> In any case, however you want to structure or use terminology, none of
> your types of alternative networks corresponds to goals and motivation
> found in networks I know. So maybe you are then not describing all
> types of alternative networks. Or you have to extend existing terms
> with also other types of goals and motivations.
>
> I would propose, that first it would be useful to extend the goals and
> motivations section itself. And then go through all existing types of
> alternative networks mentioned in the document and try to see how they
> align with those new goals and motivations.
>
>
> Mitar
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hello Mitar - I just managed to go through your emails in full :).
> >
> > Ok - I think I got the confusion - and I think I should clear it
> (probably
> > Jose can add or correct me since he is the actual driver behind this
> draft)
> > -
> >
> > the draft is about alternative networks to traditional network operator
> > based --
> >
> > so community networks was one of them - the draft was not about community
> > networks per se in its entirety.
> >
> > So we just give an overview of the different approaches (e.g. WISPs are
> one
> > of them, CNs is another, the crowdshared approach like PAWS/Freifunk or
> what
> > you are doing in slovenia is the other) --
> >
> > so this draft gives a summary of the different approaches and the tech,
> > economics, social, regulatory around these different approaches.
> >
> > Probably I am wondering whether this is where the confusion likes since
> you
> > see us talking about economics?
> >
> > The goal of the draft was discussed as I said two years ago -- so the
> focus
> > was not just on community networks.
> >
> > But I agree and always welcome tech related suggestions - ofcourse they
> need
> > to be improvised - we should do that.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On 11 April 2016 at 21:12, 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> > Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> > N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
>
>
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>