Re: [Mtgvenue] New Draft: draft-elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nalini,
At 00:37 12-07-2016, [e-mail] wrote:
>I am posting this draft to the list as the date to submit officially 
>passed last week.

In Section 1: "One of the criteria for choosing a location is the 
amount of participation by the people in that region."  The draft 
extends participation in the IETF process to: "email lists, writing 
drafts, physical or remote attendance at a meeting, chairing Working 
Groups and so on".  In general, participation is when the person 
expresses an opinion.  It is usually done to influence a decision 
which is being taken.  Attending a meeting, whether it is done in 
person or remotely, does not mean that the person is participating in 
the IETF process.

draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00 argues for not having a meeting 
in a place for outreach purposes while Section 1.2 and 1.3 of this 
draft argues that having a meeting in a new geographic region could 
provide some motivation to participate.

The draft creates two categories of participation: "active 
contribution to substantive IETF work" and support to "improve the 
functioning of the IETF organism".  I read the draft and I could only 
find the following for the second category: "Involvement in process 
groups is very much needed by the IETF and it may be a way for new 
people to work their way towards fundamental participation".

Section 2.2 mentions "social sanctions for making comments without 
merit" on email lists or at the microphone in a meeting merely to 
improve the statistics for the region.  Does "social sanctions" 
include problematic comments?

Section 2.2.1 mentions economic cost.  If a person attends a meeting 
in person, the costs are travel expenses, meeting fee, and up to six 
days of work.  The draft argues that "an Internet connection of some 
type and an access device is all that is needed".  I would argue that 
the person also needs to have some understanding of the topic being 
discussed and be prepared to discuss about it.  That cost is not 
being taken into account.

Section 2.2.2 mentions that if an Internet Draft "is chosen for live 
presentation at a Working Group session, then that is a high degree 
of participation".  That is a presentation and not a review of the 
Internet Draft.  It is not worth doing a (free) review if the live 
presentation is viewed as higher on the participation scale.

I'll make a few suggestions:

   (i)   Please assume that there will be attempts to "game the 
system".  If the
         number is relatively low it is not a significant concern.

   (ii)  If the objective is to have a measure of participation it is 
better not
         to get into a discussion about the level of participation.

   (iii) It might be easier to "count" comments received during 
WGLCs.  Not having
         Area Directors in the "count" does not significantly affect 
the "count" as
         I assume that it is a large number.

One of the issues with (iii) is that the person commenting does not 
usually provide location information.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy