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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

I like the idea of trying an "annual" (or "occasional")
publication of people's works-in-progress. Sounds a bit
like the proceedings of a workshop maybe? But however
it's cast, I'd say, yes do try it.

One other point, maybe a nit: for me, the RG can be
happy that a document is ready for publication even
if there is not consensus on all of the content of
the document. I think HRPC could do more to publish
documents in that kind of state via inclusion of some
well-written caveats/disclaimers.

Cheers,
S.

On 08/04/2020 04:24, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> **
> 
> *Recently it has felt to me as though the HRPC RG was spinning its
> wheels. Our documents aren't moving along the path to RFC very easily
> and except for interesting presentations at meetings, well worth while
> in themselves, we have not been making great progress with our research.*
> 
> *
> 
> Part of this comes from a disagreement about the use of RFC publishing. 
> While I know it is not a requirement for the IRTF, I strongly believe
> that research published as a RG RFC should have RG agreement for
> publication. This does not mean that there must be agreement on all the
> ideas and statements in the doc, but on the finished product. This was
> the process we followed with RFC 8280 and I believe it works. A bit
> cumbersome and slow at times, but it led to what I believe was a better
> document. 
> 
> 
> Not everyone, including my co-chair, agrees with this approach. To many,
> the RFC series is the publication method used by the IRTF and not
> everything needs to be a rough consensus document. In addition to
> individual submissions, IRTF submissions are not bound by IETF rules.
> They rightly ask why HRPC should be so strict when there is no
> requirement to be. This question in one way or another has been asked by
> several people in the RG over the last few years. The recent difficulty
> has also been named as a reason for why researchers have seemed a bit
> less willing to work on documents lately; what is the point if they
> won't get published.
> 
> 
> I can see this point of view, and yet, I still find myself unable to
> support sending a RG document to the IRSG  that the RG does not think is
> ready for publication. Of course individual submissions would be a
> different matter as those do not need to be shepherded by the RG chair
> in the same way.
> 
> 
> Mallory and I have been discussing this impasse on and off for the last
> two years. The last time we talked we both felt, I believe, that it was
> time to try something different to break the impasse.  I made a
> suggestion for working with two tracks, one the RFC track where RG
> internet drafts need RG support for publication as RFCs, and the other,
> the production of a yearly publication that is an edited volume that
> does not require RG approval. Mallory suggested that I bring this to the
> RG for discussion.
> 
> 
> What I am suggesting for the non RFC track is that we pick a topic per
> year and publish a collection of research, essays, and commentary on
> that topic. How we would publish this remains to be discovered; could be
> anything from a wiki site to an ebook or even finding a journal to do a
> special release, if such a thing is possible. Mallory and I would act as
> lead editors, but we would need to enlist help from members of the RG in
> terms of putting such an effort together, as it does take work and
> contributions.
> 
> 
> In terms of topics for a first year, I have thought of two, but am not
> wed to either of them at all. We would need to find a subject that
> members of the RG, and hopefully others, would be willing to contribute
> their writing to.
> 
> 
> 1 - Take the draft-politics as the seed and build the edition around the
> various aspects of that discussion and the issues it raises.
> 
> 
> 2 - Take the HRPC core question on “whether standards and protocols can
> enable, strengthen or threaten human rights” and explore the various
> viewpoints on that question, including the pros, the cons and anything
> in between.
> 
> 
> This topic is on our upcoming meeting agenda, and I hope to gather some
> viewpoints that will guide how we can move forward, or not as the case
> may be, with the idea. Also interested in opinions on the list.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>