Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

I thank you for your input,

On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 4:10 AM Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> [....]
>
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:01:07AM -0500, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> >In other words: I don't believe it is widely accepted that HRPC has a
> >misguided view of its own purpose. Others may, but that has
> >unequivocally improved since it was first chartered.
>
> I must say that I very strongly disagree with that "unequivocally
> improved" claim.  I thought the original charter discussion was pretty good
> because of the way it whittled the space down to a set of questions that
> one could imagine answering through research.  I was indeed frustrated over
> time by the way the RG resisted sticking to those questions, but at least
> there was something to hang on to.  I don't think officially giving up on
> such scope limitations is an unequivocal improvement.  (Maybe I'm just
> old-fashioned.  I also believe that, say, musical forms often provide a
> better structure for creativity than a total lack of such structure.)
>

you are right, and you are not old-fashioned. My opinion is focusing on
human rights of IP_Users and them not to be abused by the technology
because of the way of technical_protocol design. I think the RG chair needs
to check the consensus on their proposal of recharter because I think the
chair has a different opinion from the group. This group need experts in
many disciplines that will help but we need a clear scope in each
research_draft or research_task.


> I suppose I will receive a suggestion that I make a PR at the github, but
> if I am honest I don't really understand why the charter text needs to
> change except perhaps to remove bullet 2 under "Objective".
>
>
> I also don't understand, because the first message in this thread from the
chair did not explain the recharter-reasons from IAB.

Best Wishes

AB