Re: [irtf-discuss] Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) awards for IETF 109

Philipp Richter <richterp@csail.mit.edu> Wed, 30 September 2020 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <richterp@csail.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41A33A0ACD for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.112
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0xBH527MHAd for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-stata.csail.mit.edu (outgoing-stata.csail.mit.edu [128.30.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA94A3A0AC7 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [37.120.43.221] (helo=voyager.fritz.box) by outgoing-stata.csail.mit.edu with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <richterp@csail.mit.edu>) id 1kNhQb-000Bpp-RO for irtf-discuss@irtf.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:06:14 -0400
To: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
References: <78D7C850-9CC9-4989-ADAC-8B45C143E428@csperkins.org> <15480B32-F3AF-43CB-A014-C0548EB23442@strayalpha.com> <F261BBB3-8334-41CC-AF10-26499F4E232E@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <8AC3D78B-47D4-4904-AA60-96C39FAD4A96@csperkins.org>
From: Philipp Richter <richterp@csail.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <973fbca0-ed94-6e39-e13f-b456aa4eed3c@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 21:06:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8AC3D78B-47D4-4904-AA60-96C39FAD4A96@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/HmIS14do6juR8WL-0VmawvPWWM8>
Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) awards for IETF 109
X-BeenThere: irtf-discuss@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-discuss>, <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:06:17 -0000

Broadening the scope of *nominations* could clearly help increasing the 
influx of interesting and relevant works.

Actual decisions on which nominated papers receive an *award*, however, 
should be based on the merit of the nominated papers, and their 
relevance to the IETF/IRTF, and not on preference (or non-preference) 
for specific venues.

Everything else would undermine the value of an ANRP award, and 
ultimately discourage people from nominating high-quality papers for an 
ANRP award.

(just my 2 cents)

--Philipp

On 30.09.20 11:15, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2020, at 00:07, Rodney Van Meter <rdv=40sfc.wide.ad.jp@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> As always, the *individuals* being awarded are highly worthy.  I have no complaints against them or their advisors or their work.
>>
>> But when the *system* bubbles up from the same sources again and again, then a lot of *current* good work goes unrecognized, and the people and institutions on the margins aren’t encouraged, and new blood stops coming in.
>>
>> I’m not tracking networking conferences as closely as I used to (ask me about quantum, though!), but I’ll try to check some of smaller venues for recent interesting work for this year’s nominations.  There are a lot of regional conferences and smaller workshops where, to be frank, much of the work counts as a good first step, but there are also gems out there.  It shouldn’t always be SIGCOMM, INFOCOM, NSDI.
> 
> Absolutely – the challenge is finding such venues, and the people who can identify and nominate the work that doesn’t reach the mainstream, but that might be interesting and relevant.
> 
> If you know of anyone that can help find such work, please put me, or one of the other award committee members, in touch with them, so we can try to broaden the pool of nominations.
> 
> And, equally, please suggest people to serve on the award committee in future years that can help widen its reach. We rotated some new people in this year, but I know we can broaden it still further.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Again, congrats to this time’s winners, good work!
>>
>> —Rod
>>
>> Rodney Van Meter
>> rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp
>> Professor, Faculty of Environment and Information Studies, Keio University, Japan
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 2020, at 7:57, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Colin,
>>>
>>> FWIW, it would be nice if these awards didn’t constantly seem to go to groups already heavily entrenched in the IETF (granted the students are new, but the advisors don’t seem to be).
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
> 
> 
>