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

[Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[e-mail]>]

you should probably go and check the gaia archives when Jose asked for
feedback..

we cant be running around other mailing lists asking for feedback...

I still dont understand whats your point about this misinterpretation?
On 12 Apr 2016 00:03, "Mitar" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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..
>
> Please, show me an e-mail where you asked for such feedback on any
> mailing list with community networks?
>
> > we have people from other CNs who have contributed to this draft and gave
> > feedback..
>
> Great. :-)
>
> But yes, continue locked inside the processes knowing that you are
> misrepresenting community networks.
>
>
> Mitar
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>