Re: [hrpc] re how 8280 is being used for HR considerations sections

I think Professor Braman is making a very valid argument. I don't know why
it doesn't need this additional analysis. I also don't think she is arguing
that HRPC lacks vigour. The argument is that before adding anything to the
I-D we should do enough research. We can also have a chain of I-Ds that can
include our changes over time. (I think like a living document, if that's
possible) I personally don't think the number of I-Ds that this group
publishes matter. It can be one I-D that can be tested and researched over
time. For example, like Fidler and I argued in the past and we saw this
argument on this mailing list as well, implementation is very important. We
can observe the implementation of the protocols and add to the documents
from what we have learned and test the theories.

Farzaneh

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi Sandra,
>
> I believe draft-guidelines has achieved it's aim and doesn't need this
> additional analysis, as interesting as it might be. As Niels said, there
> has already been sufficient work done in this regard for draft-guidelines
> that shouldn't be overlooked.
>
> I suggest it being additional, and ongoing work, that builds on
> draft-guidelines.
>
> One of the challenges that I'm noticing in these exchanges about HRPC work
> is how people view it, and are inspired by the potential, but rather than
> saying "yes, AND" or "this has given me an idea", the tendency is to assume
> the existing work is somehow lacking because it hasn't already incorporated
> that new idea.
>
> HRPC isn't suffering from rigour in its ideas an execution on those.
> Indeed we rather need to establish the foundational research so that these
> new ideas-- like the analysis framework-- can build on top, hopefully as
> new drafts.
>
> -Mallory
> On 5/4/21 12:54 PM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>
> Appreciate the thought, Mallory. However, whether or not the analysis will
> yield anything that should be incorporated into the draft guidelines text
> can only be determined once the research has been done.
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:16 AM Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for volunteering to work on this, Sandra!
>>
>> I would suggest that the analysis go further in depth and also stay open,
>> as things change and progress, so adding them to existing drafts wouldn't
>> be the best strategy.
>>
>> -Mallory
>> On 5/4/21 4:21 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>
>> Given the process, there is no need or reason to say analysis of this
>> subject "can't be included" in the draft guidelines document currently
>> being discussed. An alternative formulation would be to say that the
>> document should not be considered complete until uses people are making of
>> the existing document for which the draft is trying to provide guidelines
>> have been examined and insights they provide have been incorporated into
>> the text. This is not only within existing scope but a basic step, for
>> would be for many the first step, for either a researcher looking at this
>> problem or for someone who is writing a guide in a technical writing sense.
>>
>> I'll do the analysis of discussions of the human rights considerations
>> section in the 7 drafts that include these sections and report back as soon
>> as I can. This should be a couple of weeks, and by then I'll have other
>> thoughts on what is the current draft of the text at that point as well
>> (with all thumbs up the option I, as so many, am hoping for). It will also
>> be interesting to see the genetic drift from RFC 3552 to RFC 6973 (which
>> opens by saying it is modeled on 3552) to RFC 8280; the 3552 I asked about
>> a few days ago is the grandparent. Thanks again to Gurshabad for pointers
>> as I am still learning my way around the document system.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Mallory Knodel <mknodel@cdt.org>
>>> To: Sandra Braman <braman@tamu.edu>
>>> Cc: hrpc@irtf.org
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:23:53 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] re history lessons
>>> On 5/3/21 11:15 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>>
>>> > and what the reasons were for not ultimately including that section in
>>> > documents ultimately published
>>>
>>> No one has yet done this research so it can't be included or cited.
>>>
>>> We do not have any current work items on it either but would openly
>>> encourage and welcome them,
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mallory Knodel
>>> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
>>> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing listhrpc@irtf.orghttps://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!Q3RHG3ea9r2vSSpq_EJKDDzP-dY5e94Qq5jfyzZrEBH0WNUfUVjItIPgDwEByg$>
>>
>> --
>> Mallory Knodel
>> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
>> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>>
>> --
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>