Re: [hrpc] Diverse participation (and the lack thereof) was: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-03.txt

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

I agree – understanding the extent to which diversity and inclusivity of the standards making community impacts the quality, take-up, and impact of the resulting standards seems like an important research topic. 

Changing the way a standards organisation operates in order to enhance diversity and inclusivity may be important, but doesn’t seem like research. 

Colin




> On 12 Jul 2019, at 13:45, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> It is in as much as participation is a factor in decisions made in standards that affect societies.  However, my own interest in seeing the IETF not become irrelevant is not relevant here, I must admit.
> 
> Eliot
> 
>> On 12 Jul 2019, at 13:49, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Is hrpc the right venue for this discussion though? Might fit better in IAB or GEN AREA ? I don't want to get hrpc (and its chairs) into trouble (again). 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Niels
>> 
>> On 7/12/19 1:29 PM, Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> It's an interesting discussion.
>>> To Niels point on a "IETF/IRTF participation draft":
>>> - Should the evolution (and relative pervasiveness) of collaboration technologies/means/practices also be factored in?
>>> - For the participation from academics, I could share some experience and limited analysis on why some researchers participate, or don't or stop to. IETF and IRTF have different implications.
>>> 
>>> --Laurent.
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: hrpc <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 13:09
>>>> To: Niels ten Oever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-03.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, it’s fair enough to not have to cram everything in one draft.  I must
>>>> admit my own concern about our self-selective tendencies, not simply
>>>> because the disadvantage new entrants, but because it will limit our
>>>> relevance over time.
>>>> 
>>>> Eliot
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12 Jul 2019, at 13:04, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed PGP part
>>>>> Hi Elliot,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/12/19 12:10 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Niels
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2019, at 11:26, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Many people in the IETF are convinced that the meetings are not
>>>> intended to bring in new people, this actually has become an official non-
>>>> goal in the meeting venue selection process per draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
>>>> venue-selection-process and draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy. The
>>>> current consensus seems to be that participating in the IETF is not
>>>> dependent of physical participation, but can also be done through
>>>> mailinglists and remote tools.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As the editor of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process, I
>>>> don’t think you should shy away in your research from challenging that
>>>> where, in your view, the IETF may have erred.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't worry, I will ;)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whatever consensus the IETF has can change based on well reasoned
>>>> argument, and the IRTF is expected to provide that.  Maybe not
>>>> immediately, and maybe not without other precipitating factors that either
>>>> don’t exist today or are not yet readily apparent, but this is really the
>>>> only way change happens.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the the issue of participation would benefit from its own draft.
>>>> Ideally it could show several trends:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - consolidation
>>>>> 	-  total number of participants/draft authors/RFC
>>>> authors/mailinglist contributors is affiliated to a low number of
>>>> organizations
>>>>> - academic exodus
>>>>> 	- decreasing number of participants/draft authors/RFC
>>>> authors/mailinglist contributors is affiliated with an academic
>>>> institution
>>>>> - geographical representation
>>>>> - diversity
>>>>> 
>>>>> and seek to explain to the data and trends, and ideally also provide
>>>> recommendations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do personally not think it would be helpful to add this to draft-irtf-
>>>> hrpc-political, but it could indeed be a follow-up draft. I would be happy
>>>> to support the writing of that with quantitative mailinglist analysis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I could also imagine this being part of this draft though:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-02 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-02>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Where it might have more impact than in hrpc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Niels
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Eliot
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>>> Researcher and PhD Candidate
>>>>> DATACTIVE Research Group
>>>>> University of Amsterdam
>>>>> 
>>>>> PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>>>>                  643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Researcher and PhD Candidate
>> DATACTIVE Research Group
>> University of Amsterdam
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
>>                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/