Re: [I18nrp] Draft minutes

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Pete. I'm working on a draft charter and should be able to share
that on list in the next few days.

On 8/7/18 9:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Hearing no comments (other than to put in a legend with the names of the
> speakers), I will post this to the proceedings site.
> 
> pr
> 
> On 2 Aug 2018, at 11:37, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 
>     Please review:
> 
>     Internationalization Review Procedures (i18nrp) BoF
>     IETF 102 Montreal
> 
>     Chairs: Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre
>     Minute Taker: Matt Miller
>     Jabber Scribe: Ted Hardie
> 
>     COORDINATES
> 
>       * Date: 2018-07-16
>       * Time: 14:30-15:30 EDT
>       * Room: Saint-Paul / Sainte-Catherine
>       * Mail: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
>       * Chat: xmpp:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>?join
>       * Audio: http://ietf102streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf1026.m3u
>       * Video: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf102/i18nrp/
>       * Minutes: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-102-i18nrp
>       * Slides/Materials:
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/session/i18nrp
> 
>     AGENDA
> 
>      1.
> 
>         Administrivia (NOTE WELL, minute taker, Jabber scribe, blue
>         sheets, agenda bash) (2m)
> 
>      2.
> 
>         Goals and non-goals for the BoF (5m)
> 
>      3.
> 
>         Current review procedures (5m)
> 
>           * Chair presentation
>           * Discussion
>      4.
> 
>         Problems with current review procedures (10m)
> 
>           * Chair presentation
>           * Discussion
>      5.
> 
>         Non-mutually-exclusive proposals
> 
>           * Internationalization directorate (20m)
>               o Strawman proposal (chairs)
>               o Discussion
>           * Internationalization considerations RFC (15m)
>               o Strawman proposal (chairs)
>               o Discussion
>      6.
> 
>         Next steps and action items (5m)
> 
>     MINUTES
> 
>     After administrivia, chairs presented on current review procedures
>     and problems with current procedures (see
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-i18nrp-internationalization-review-procedures-chair-slides).
> 
>     Discussion:
> 
>     Other problems not in the chair slides (slide 10)?
> 
>       * the few people who review things get overloaded (JK)
>       * lack of consistency about what the issues are and what to do
>         about them (JL)
>       * we have individuals with knowledge, but they're not organized as
>         a functioning team so efforts are ad-hoc (PR)
> 
>     Chairs then laid out the two strawman proposals:
> 
>     I18N DIRECTORATE
> 
>     Discussion:
> 
>     It was heard that "triaging is relatively easy", but is that
>     documented somewhere? (DY)
> 
>       * Today depends on an oral tradition (not sustainable) (PSA)
>       * Triaging is also largely "I know it when I see it." (PR)
>       * It may not be possible to document the triaging strategy? (AS)
>       * Identifying potential for problems is relatively easy, but
>         addressing issues is much harder. (JK)
>       * Often the experts actually do the work on the document; finding
>         additional reviewers is hard. (JK)
> 
>     There have been attempts in the past, why would this succeed where
>     others have failed? (BL)
> 
>       * Note that IAB internationalization program was not to review
>         IETF documents. Had other purposes. IAB work thinks in terms of
>         liaison relationships and external bodies, but IETF work may not
>         have to consider other bodies. (TH)
>       * W3C faces similar challenges (i18n-wg there too small a group
>         with too much to do). W3C has worked on tooling to identify and
>         track when i18n review is necessary. (WS)
>       * IETF groups are not often aware that a document needs i18n
>         review. (BL)
>       * W3C has a paid staff member who focuses on i18n, including
>         review, and has added sponsorship of i18n review and awareness. (WS)
>       * This time might succeed because of a growing awareness with a
>         change in approach with a "design team". (PSA)
>       * PRECIS was intended to be tools to help address i18n issues;
>         this effort is to educate and instruct on identifying i18n
>         issues. (PR)
>       * The IETF tooling available now is better than in the past. (PR)
> 
>     This is proposed to be an ART area directorate; ART ADs would be
>     responsible for its management. (AC)
> 
>       * Need to make sure that all of the structures are set up. (AC)
> 
>     How would this directorate gain and maintain diversity (most of the
>     audience in the room is European or North American)? (YY)
> 
>       * We think the 80/20 rule applies to this directorate, where most
>         issues "anyone" could handle it. (PR)
> 
>     Other comments:
> 
>       * Consider the "part-time participant" for this directorate. (CN)
>       * It may less than 80/20, and it might require much more external
>         expertise that could jeopardize this directorate. (JK)
>       * Note that other directorates (e.g., Gen-ART) has variable
>         cadences, and that might be an approach to incorporate. (AC/AR)
>       * There are two strategies that can be taken to recruit: (TH)
>          1. Recruit (outside) language experts to train others to
>             identify and triage i18n issues; or
>          2. Take people that are familiar with IETF tools and processes
>             and help them identify issues and how to find experts to
>             reach out to.
>       * Triaging (identifying) is a function of this team/directorate,
>         but to also have a pool of experts to reach out to when
>         something is identified. (PSA)
>       * Note that “triaging” means assigning to one of three categories:
>         “Healthy enough”, “Needs treatment”, or “Will die”. There should
>         be both a mechanism to address the issues or a way to "kill it
>         off". (HA)
>       * This team needs some language-specific expertise and more broad
>         expertise to understand subtle problems with catastrophic
>         consequences in exotic languages and variants. (JK/BL)
> 
>     I18N “RFC” (or other documentation)
> 
>     Discussion:
> 
>     Is a goal to build future members of the directorate? (BL)
> 
>       * That may be a goal, to capture the existing "oral tradition" for
>         future generations. (PSA)
>       * This might be useful and helpful. (BL)
> 
>     This document might need to include instructions to authors for what
>     to look for in their documents. (BL)
> 
>     Issues similar to HTTP, this effort might have an issue where the
>     team is overwhelmed; a BCP can help set expectations. (MN)
> 
>       * The W3C has useful work here (e.g., "Character Model for the
>         WWW"), and documents for authors would be helpful. (PSA)
> 
>     Similar to RFC style guide and MIB doctor: Might start with a
>     dynamic document (e.g., Wiki), then perhaps some or all of it
>     evolves into an RFC once a stable set of material is identified. (DT)
> 
>       * The IESG has discussed "documents they'd like to be published",
>         having a team without published documents may be ideal as long
>         as there are measurable goals. (AM)
>       * This is a suite of documents maintained by this team. (DY)
> 
>     Similar to those qualified to review HTTP work (a handful of
>     individuals), individuals qualified to review i18n issues
>     independent of language are even rarer. (JK)
> 
>       * There is a distinction for the knowledge base necessary for IETF
>         documents versus W3C documents. (JK)
> 
>     There are a number of bodies that want to own i18n work. What will
>     the IETF do when someone comes in claiming expertise and says we
>     should abandon our efforts? (AS)
> 
>       * This sounds like a liaison issue, but that punts to the IAB
>         ("Hope is not a plan"). (PSA/AS)
>       * If they come in asking us to stop trying to fix it, then make it
>         incumbent on them to then fix it. (AR)
>       * Getting this perfect is extraordinarily difficult, but getting
>         it better may not be. This team would be better than what we
>         have today, and building up the documentation and external
>         connections can take place over time. (TH)
> 
>     Flag the notion of exclusivity on doing this work; help inspire
>     external participants to expand from their language space into our
>     networking space. (AC)
> 
>     The IETF has a large number of people with a deep understanding of
>     network architecture, but very small number of people with a deep
>     understanding of language issues. The issue isn't to make things
>     better, but when we have sufficient understanding to review
>     documents. (JK)
> 
>     ACTIONS SUMMARY BY CHAIRS
> 
>       * That steps should be taken to help document how to identify i18n
>         issues
>       * Help find people to contribute expertise; reach out to ANWR and
>         other educational groups
>       * ADs to confer about next steps, and continue discussion on
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>     QUESTIONS TO THE ROOM BY CHAIRS
> 
>       * Who is willing to time/inclination to triage and review
>         documents? (~8)
>       * Who is willing to time/inclination to dive deeper on solving
>         hard i18n problems, not just review? (~5, including other people)
>       * About a dozen people interested to form such a group.
>       * Suggestion to recruit students to this effort. (SC)
>       * Discussion to continue on the list.
> 
>     MEETING ADJOURNED
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
>