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

[Mitar <[e-mail]>]

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