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

Dear all,

I am following the evolution of this draft since the beginning and
I have started many draft long e-mails that I finally abandoned :-)

I think that the easiest way to resolve the "conflict" is to restrict
the scope of the draft than to expand it. For example, making
even more clear that the interest is on alternative networks that
offer Internet access, and mostly on the technical questions,
avoiding to go into the question of "local" services, the concept
of community, motivations, and other social and political aspects.

There is a huge literature in social sciences that tries to cover this
dimension (e.g., work by Alison Powell, Mark Gaved, Christian
Sandvig, Katrina Jungnickel, and more) and the authors could just
acknowledge that such issues go beyond the scope of the draft.
Being an engineer that has tried to explore this other "culture" of
science in the context of Community Networks I could try to help.

Btw, if you are in London next week I will be talking at UCL on why
we should make as clear as possible the two possible roles of a
community network, Internet access and local services, if we wish
them to proliferate along both directions :-)

See http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~uceeips/group-seminars.html

Best,

Panayotis Antoniadis
http://nethood.org/panayotis/

On 12/04/16 10:06, Jose Saldana wrote:
> Hi Lars, Mat and Arjuna (and all),
>
> I have been reading all the e-mails (a lot of them BTW, which means that
> this draft has raised some interest).
>
> After a lot of work and discussion, and after the Research Group Last Call
> and the IRSG Review, I thought we had converged to something useful, but it
> seems the document can still be improved.
>
> The question is that we have to find a balance between these two extremes:
> "the perfect document that everyone likes and will never be finished" and
> "an imperfect document that can at least be published".
>
> This is my two-step proposal:
>
> 1) We (the authors, and myself as the editor) will build a new version (05)
> of the document including the suggestions of the last week, but without
> substantially modifying it. I think we can do it this week (we have already
> included a number of small improvements). We may ask for feedback from the
> people who have suggested some changes.
>
> 2) People read it slowly, and next week we can make this decision in the
> list:
> 	a) We move forward with the document version 05 as it is (perhaps
> with some minor improvements).
> 	b) Re-open the discussion and include more substantial changes,
> which may require a new Last Call and IRSG Review.
>
>
> Do you think this can be a good approach?
>
> Jose
>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Eggert, Lars
>> Enviado el: martes, 12 de abril de 2016 7:22
>> Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
>> CC: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>; Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
>> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Comments on:
> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2016-04-11, at 16:46, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> 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.
>>
>> you of course mean research group last call :-)
>>
>>> So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying
> it.
>> Well, you can modify it, but it would imply re-running the last call and
> IRSG Review.
>> It is a judgment call for the RG chairs whether they believe that a major
> revision
>> would result in a document that is so much better that it is worth
> incurring the extra
>> delay until publication.
>>
>> Lars
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia