[HR-rt] Review Team Meeting `Notes IETF 104

Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com> Sun, 24 March 2019 11:08 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 12:06:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD499eKF-c=djTi+-yZJFFkes8XdEtcb1WK8RYVM10GTpU6=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: hr-rt@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020befe0584d51bff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hr-rt/ePmpCiWYJxyZ9RUhzUuvwRw02gM>
Subject: [HR-rt] Review Team Meeting `Notes IETF 104
Precedence: list

Dear all,

Please find below my rough draft of the notes I took during the Review Team
meeting this morning.

Let me know if anything is unclear.



Human Right Review Team:



-       Has been contentious

-       Has put HRPC at risk

-       How to develop, two strategies below:



MK:



Strategy one:

Maybe we need to change the model and be working more WG based

We go into working groups and review from within

Reviews do need to be documented in one place, it can be tracked and
followed via interventions in drafts. Doesn't have to be separate documents.

We need to make the work more in line with how the WGs work.



Strategy two:

Sometimes it’s good to parachute in because at the end of a process the
authors might have difficulties seeing certain issues.

These two approaches are a bit difficult to combine (embed + parachute in)
– but if we pair folks up, it might work.



MK:

Maybe a review like that could have been a blog? Because it is interesting
but perhaps less suitable for a WG discussion.



AA:

We need to think about how the HRPC developments reflect on our
organizations



MK:

People talked to us about like we were a directorate, but we have course
corrected and been quieter in the approach. Maybe we need to change the
metrics, we know much more now about how we can be effective in this work.



CCS:

How do you know where to work?

What do you do with it? How do we work with 8280? How do we know how to
iterate on our work?



MK:

Good question, I have some more questions in response:

Is it ability based?

Is it this group-is-on-fire-based?

Not sure I have all the answers to this.



Maybe we need to reverse map from 8280 to all the different WG and go from
there? CDT has a thing like that, maybe we ask to see it and work from that?



SS:

We shouldn’t just restrict that to IETF, this is also an issue for IEEE etc.

Sounds like a lot of work though



MK: review team next steps

Karan +GG finish current reviews

Scoping and mapping that can be done for work going forward

How do we share information about reviews



KS:

Responses are a good one for metrics



GG:

Uploaded a new version of the guidelines document

If reviews are done in an embedded way, how do we feed that back to the
guidelines



MK:

We also need to see whether RFC8280 makes sense based on the feedback we get

We raised a lot of questions

Bangkok was a difficult meeting – have we sufficiently regrouped?



Which WGs people are in currently:

TLS (fellow)

REGEX (GG)

CAPORT (GG + MK0

Dots (MK)

MLS (SS + nat + dkg)

GAIA (MK + CCS)

Quic (SS + CCS)

DinRG (SS)

PearG (SS + CCS)

DNSop (KS)

SMART (SS)

IPWave (AA)

IASA (CCS)

SecDispatch (SS)

DOH (GG)



Maybe we should do a debrief after this week, also keeping in mind that we
are putting in new grants for this work.


Kind regards,

-- 
Corinne Cath - Speth
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com
Twitter: @C_Cath

[HR-rt] Review Team Meeting `Notes IETF 104 Corinne Cath
Re: [HR-rt] Review Team Meeting `Notes IETF 104 Beatrice Martini