Re: [gaia] How to carry on with the "manyfolks" draft

Well, this is my view if we want to write a document including everything: many people in the list will not agree on using the name "Community Network" for these other possibilities, like the ones driven by a company. E.g. I don't think we will be able to have consensus for considering FON as a Community Network.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00190.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00204.html

So if we found a broader name, we could include all the networks under discussion ("non-traditional", "user-centric", "free" or "whatever networks"), and CNs would be a subset of them.

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Enviado el: martes, 01 de julio de 2014 7:04
> Para: Jose Saldana
> CC: gaia
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] How to carry on with the "manyfolks" draft
> 
> i think we should do (1): use the current feedback to revise and get more
> contributors onboard. But I am not sure why you are proposing to change the title of
> the doc? its like changing the original vision/goal and from the discussions so far - i
> dont think thats what the members suggested - its more about making the
> classification more inclusive.
> 
> Arjuna
> 
> On 30 June 2014 10:16, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have tried to extract the main ideas from the discussion in the
> > list, and I have built this document.
> >
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67016195/discussion_CN_def_v1.docx
> >
> >
> >
> > As you can see, there are lots of contributions in the list, from
> > people with wide experience.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, the first problem to solve is the scope of the draft.
> > From my point of view, there are three different ways:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1- Writing a very broad document including
> > “all-the-networks-we-are-talking-about-here”, and then classifying them.
> > Community Networks would become a section of the document, and could
> > be distinguished from other approaches.
> >
> >
> >
> > In this case we should remove the words “Community Networks” from the
> > title, and try to find a “broad name” including everything. What about
> > a “negative
> > definition”?: something similar to NGO: like “non-operator networks”
> > or “non-conventional networks”. Perhaps “user-centric networks” can also fit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2- Writing a number of documents: one about community networks, other
> > about FON-like networks, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > This option is really difficult: it will be impossible to find
> > consensus when defining the borders between different network models.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3- Assuming that this is an impossible task. Let’s forget about a
> > definition.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this is not an option. The objective of GAIA is writing good
> > documents about these things…
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jose Saldana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gaia mailing list
> > gaia@irtf.org
> > https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Arjuna Sathiaseelan | http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia