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

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>