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

[Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[e-mail]>]

I am sorry - but the document has been floating around for 2 years now -
and just passed IRSG review process..

you just joined on the 6th April!

and stating that we consulted only Guifi is not appropriate considering
that we have been working with the GAIA group sending mails after mails
asking for feedback and using the feedback to revise the draft..

we have people from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and gave
feedback..

if you want to write a new document, please do with your thoughts. - thank
arjuna

On 11 April 2016 at 16:46, Mitar <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the
> first
> > version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and discussion,
> the
> > draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call, and the IRSG
> review.
> > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying
> it.
>
> It is amazing that in whole this work until now this was the first
> time that information about this process has come to the community
> networks at all. And I am probably on all mailing lists there are
> about community networks.
>
> So I would really be questioning how it is possible to create such a
> document without involvement of the whole segment you are trying to
> describe? From my reading it seems you have consulted only with
> guifi.net community network, UPC, and not much others? And even that
> was without any broader survey or something?
>
> I got some private comments explaining agreement with my comments and
> surprises how community networks are depicted in your draft.
>
> So now you have a decision to make. Are you going further with
> something you know lacks clearly needed improvements, or you go on
> just because you are stuck in the process. What would really be the
> benefit to the broader Internet community if it contains such (I would
> claim) invalid information?
>
> Please point me to messages to wireless community mailing lists where
> gaia task force send any announcement about this work, ask community
> networks for input, reported to them on progress and process?
> Explained deadlines and so on?
>
> > We will have a look at your suggestions, and include those that we can
> > reasonably include, but we have to move forward, or we will never have a
> > document about this.
>
> This would be loss for the whole Internet community. No document is
> better than invalid document, no?
>
> > The question is that if we re-open the discussion, we
> > will have to go back again, and this is something we should avoid.
>
> Why? Isn't the rational thing to try to get to something useful? What
> is the purpose of this document? To have something published? Or to
> have something published which can guide and inform the Internet
> community in a meaningful way? Currently, the document pretty badly
> represents wireless community networks to the extent that I would even
> consider it harmful to represent them in this way. Or at least rename
> "community networks" in your document to something else, like
> "community operated Internet providers" and let "community networks"
> be defined in some other document.
>
>
> Mitar
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>



-- 
Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d