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

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

I'm also building a few simple tools with GitHub Actions that can 
basically turn GH into a full interface from creating draft repos to 
datatracker upload. More on that soon, hopefully.

HTH,

-Mallory

On 5/4/21 1:43 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> It seems we are getting into a chicken and egg discussion. Whereas 
> imho we can have many chickens and many eggs.
>
> What would be against it if we go ahead with the publication of 
> draft-guidelines as RFC as well as keep working on improving the 
> practice and documenting that as Farzaneh suggests?
>
> Future updates can include consideration for evaluation, as suggested 
> by Sandra, which can also be an I-D on itself imho.
>
> I do hope more people will start authoring their own I-Ds in this RG. 
> If they have problems if the formatting I am happy to help.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4 May 2021, at 19:34, farzaneh badii <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     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.Â
>
>
>     Farzaneh
>
>
>     On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:07 PM Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> 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
>>         <[e-mail]> 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.Â
>>>
>>>             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 <[e-mail]>
>>>                 To: Sandra Braman <[e-mail]>
>>>                 Cc:Â [e-mail]
>>>                 Bcc:Â
>>>                 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,
>>>
>>>             Â
>>>
>>>
>>>                 -M
>>>
>>>                 -- 
>>>                 Mallory Knodel
>>>                 CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
>>>                 gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071
>>>                 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>>>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             hrpc mailing list
>>>             [e-mail]
>>>             https://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
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     hrpc mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780