Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-03.txt

["Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

It's an interesting discussion.
To Niels point on a "IETF/IRTF participation draft":
 - Should the evolution (and relative pervasiveness) of collaboration technologies/means/practices also be factored in?
 - For the participation from academics, I could share some experience and limited analysis on why some researchers participate, or don't or stop to. IETF and IRTF have different implications.

--Laurent.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hrpc <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 13:09
> To: Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-03.txt
> 
> Ok, it’s fair enough to not have to cram everything in one draft.  I must
> admit my own concern about our self-selective tendencies, not simply
> because the disadvantage new entrants, but because it will limit our
> relevance over time.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> > On 12 Jul 2019, at 13:04, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Signed PGP part
> > Hi Elliot,
> >
> > On 7/12/19 12:10 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >> Hi Niels
> >>
> >>> On 12 Jul 2019, at 11:26, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Many people in the IETF are convinced that the meetings are not
> intended to bring in new people, this actually has become an official non-
> goal in the meeting venue selection process per draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
> venue-selection-process and draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy. The
> current consensus seems to be that participating in the IETF is not
> dependent of physical participation, but can also be done through
> mailinglists and remote tools.
> >>
> >> As the editor of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process, I
> don’t think you should shy away in your research from challenging that
> where, in your view, the IETF may have erred.
> >
> > Don't worry, I will ;)
> >
> >  Whatever consensus the IETF has can change based on well reasoned
> argument, and the IRTF is expected to provide that.  Maybe not
> immediately, and maybe not without other precipitating factors that either
> don’t exist today or are not yet readily apparent, but this is really the
> only way change happens.
> >>
> >
> > I think the the issue of participation would benefit from its own draft.
> Ideally it could show several trends:
> >
> > - consolidation
> > 	-  total number of participants/draft authors/RFC
> authors/mailinglist contributors is affiliated to a low number of
> organizations
> > - academic exodus
> > 	- decreasing number of participants/draft authors/RFC
> authors/mailinglist contributors is affiliated with an academic
> institution
> > - geographical representation
> > - diversity
> >
> > and seek to explain to the data and trends, and ideally also provide
> recommendations.
> >
> > I do personally not think it would be helpful to add this to draft-irtf-
> hrpc-political, but it could indeed be a follow-up draft. I would be happy
> to support the writing of that with quantitative mailinglist analysis.
> >
> > I could also imagine this being part of this draft though:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-02
> >
> > Where it might have more impact than in hrpc.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> >
> >> Eliot
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Researcher and PhD Candidate
> > DATACTIVE Research Group
> > University of Amsterdam
> >
> > PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
> >                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> >
> >
> >