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

[Beatrice Martini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Corinne and all,

Thank you very much for the discussions and notes taken and shared!

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

This sounds like a very good idea, indeed.

Thanks again! Looking forward to discussing further.

Best,
Beatrice

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:08 PM Corinne Cath <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> <http://www.oii..ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath>
> Email: [e-mail] & [e-mail]
> Twitter: @C_Cath
> _______________________________________________
> HR-rt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt
>


-- 
Beatrice Martini
Twitter <https://twitter.com/beatricemartini> / Blog
<http://beatricemartini.it/blog/> / Newsletter <http://eepurl.com/bbDuEn>