Re: [hrpc] Possible options for a HRPC research publication

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Just a bit of history and context, the hrpc.io website is, or should soon
be, a flat HTML site without a CRM. It was getting one update per year,
maximum, and to me that doesn't justify (vulnerable) software running on a
server. If it hasn't been done already, we could interrupt this, so that
hrpc.io could become a publishing platform (again). But historically it
hasn't been used. When it was actively publishing fresh content it wasn't
that much visited.

-M

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:08 PM Stéphane Couture <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> That is a good discussion. However, I suggest that you keep it open a bit
> more as it is currently (this long weekend) a holiday for many people, and
> others might want to jump in later.
>
> Here are some inputs :
>
> - I agree with the perspective that RFC writing should be at the core of
> this research group. It is,I think, the way to go to engage with IETF
> technical community and enhance the discussion about human rights and
> internet protocols.
>
> - However, if we keep a consensus-base approach, I think there is work to
> be done to clarify or at least do some pedagogy about what exactly
> “consensus” means in the case of HRTF. It’s one thing to get consensus from
> 200 people on every words of a document, and another thing to have a
> consensus that the document respects our common standard of quality by
> going through different editorial steps. We could decide for instance, that
> if three people support the document and no one express strong opposition,
> that the document is considered to reach consensus. But this is just an
> example.
>
> - However (again), if we are interested to get more involvement from
> academic researchers, it is important to recognize that RFC is a weird
> document, especially from a social science perspective. First, it is a
> steep learning curve to ask people to use github and Markdown language to
> start writing.  Second, it is difficult to categorize this research output
> in our CV: while the process of RFC writing – as it is now – does require
> multiple reviews and is quite demanding, it is still difficult to qualify
> this document as “double blind peer reviewed article”. Personally, I
> justify my contribution to RFC, not as a research output, but foremost as a
> way to engage with the community which is also important, but not the same
> as publishing an article.
>
> - With all this said, I think we should also consider HRPC as a space that
> has more generative potential than just RFC writing. This is already the
> case : there is the hrpc website (https://hrpc.io) which includes, among
> other things the short documentary “A net of rights” which is not an RFC
> (and by the way, my student made a French translation of the subtitles,
> which I need to share). An idea I would propose would be to make have a
> blog - on this website or elsewhere - that would allows sharing less
> demanding individual texts that could, in turn contribute back to RFC
> writing (a kind of circularity). We could also use this site – and HRPC RG
> - to promote other related projects/publications, and facilitate
> collaboration.
>
> Anyway, that’s my view based on my observations and my experience with
> draft-association.
>
> Best,
>
> Stéphane Couture
>
>
>
>
> Le ven. 10 avr. 2020, à 13 h 55, farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>
> a écrit :
>
>> Hi Mallory
>>
>> By document I didn't really mean anything in specific just meant the
>> submissions to the group.
>> Thank you for the offer to send our work to the group for review, the
>> reason we haven't asked the group for comments is that we are yet to
>> develop it further..
>>
>> We received great constructive comments during the session in Prague,
>> last year and thank you for the opportunity. I don't think we submitted it
>> as an Internet draft. And it was beneficial for us and I think the
>> attendees enjoyed the conversation too. I characterize the conversation as
>> a more collegial conversation than the community trying to prove us wrong.
>>
>> I was not saying that RG functions like that (rushing to publish). The
>> fact that you are looking for a solution to keep submissions published but
>> also not characterize all of them as RFCs  or look into other kinds of RFCs
>> and streams attest to it. I was just trying to relay what I think the risks
>> are based on my very limited knowledge about the processes.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:45 AM Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>>
>>> By "the document" I assume you mean draft-political, to which you
>>> yourself wrote and presented a differing view in response. Is your document
>>> still something you think this group should attend to and work on? Was it
>>> revised after the latest rounds of feedback in Prague and on the list? Or
>>> perhaps it's been published elsewhere (please share link)? I'd suggest you
>>> start a separate thread on this.
>>>
>>> "without the rush to creating an RFC out of every opinion and
>>> manifesto."
>>>
>>> Anyone actively participating in this group would know there has been no
>>> rushing to anything on behalf of this research group; nor is this at all a
>>> fair characterisation of our RG's current work items.
>>>
>>> -Mallory
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:09 PM farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure but not every enthusiastic academic piece qualifies as an RFC.
>>>> Half baked conceptual ideas that need years of development and their
>>>> implementation is doubtful too and there is no consensus around them should
>>>> not just be pushed through unless there are fundamental and clear
>>>> substantive changes in the document. The evolution of concepts must be
>>>> clear with strong empirical analysis. Or it has to be narrower without
>>>> grand theoretical and philosophical claims.  Otherwise publishing a piece
>>>> as RFC is merely giving lip service to human rights. I don't know how this
>>>> process is going to play out but maybe academics can layout their  concepts
>>>> and ideas in the non-RFC track and  RG can consider what needs to be
>>>> transferred to the RFC track. I think academics are in need of good
>>>> feedback to build on what they have, and the non-RFC track should include
>>>> ways to receive feedback from the IETF community so that they can improve
>>>> their pieces and be published without the rush to creating an RFC out of
>>>> every opinion and manifesto.
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:36 PM Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > The publication in the RFC-series and the connected exposure to, and
>>>>> interaction with, the technical community in the IRTF and IETF is for me
>>>>> the main reason to work and publish here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Niels. Publishing an RFC is needed so that the IETF
>>>>> community takes human rights considerations more seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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