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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nalini,
At 13:27 12-07-2016, [e-mail] wrote:
>Yes, agreed.  I believe I was trying to say that if we use comments 
>made in a WG meeting (expressing an opinion), then that is 
>considered participation.  It is impossible to quantify "hallway 
>conversations" and such.

For what is worth, I chose that description for participation as that 
word is already used in a BCP.  I prefer not to explore hallway 
conversations as it would be like tackling problems which cannot be solved.

>I was trying to say that showing increased participation in a region 
>is done by a group of committed people who try to organize the 
>region and that has a lot of value in and of itself.   I was not 
>saying that IETF meetings should be held in a region for the 
>purposes of outreach.  But, I think if what I am saying is being 
>misunderstood, then I should rephrase.

You captured what you were trying to say in the last paragraph of 
Section 1.3.

>I will add more on "process" activities.  For example, helping with 
>the mentoring program making matches, helping with outreach, etc.

It might make the usage of the word "participation" more difficult.

>Do you mean that people will be rude if someone says something which 
>does not have merit?

There has been a few cases previously where the receiver might be 
offended.  I haven't been keeping up with the meeting stuff to 
comment about whether it would happen nowadays.

>   Or do you mean that if people make problematic comments then they 
> will be the object of social sanctions?   I guess that also brings 
> up the point, if someone makes problematic comments, then are those 
> counted in a region's statistics?  And, how do you tell what is problematic?

There are process mechanisms to deal with problematic 
comments.  There isn't a count of problematic comments; it may be 
better not to have that.  The issue was about a person making 
comments without merit on email lists or at the microphone merely to 
improve the statistics.  It may be problematic if, for example, a 
person on a mailing list is singled out.

>True.  The actual barrier to entry is that you should actually 
>understand the protocol being discussed and have something somewhat 
>intelligent to say about it.

I would use the word "useful" instead of "intelligent".

>I think you may be right on this.   At least to start with, we 
>should just use what we can verify via written means (email lists, 
>minutes, etc.) and let it all count the same.

Ok.

>I guess the thing I was thinking is that then it makes being a WG 
>chair count the same as one comment on an email list.  Is that 
>really fair?   I don't know how to do this but I think there is 
>something to be thought about.

I did not get into the details.  For example, posting one comment or 
two over a year would not be regular participation.  Instead of 
trying to equate being a WG chair with posting one comment on a 
mailing list my suggestion was to go with some light definition of 
(WGLC) participation.  The suggestion requires much more discussion, 
in my opinion, as there are probably issues which I have not thought about.

>Not following you here.  A lot of comments are made before 
>WGLC.  What do you mean?  I am not understanding.

There are 15 Area Directors.  It should not affect the statistics if 
they are all from the same region if we look at participation in 
terms of magnitude.

>Well, this is actually a big problem with the whole 
>scheme!   Location is a piece of information we need to keep somehow 
>associated with each person.   Maybe it could be asked when you sign 
>up for an email list?  Or when you register?   I guess each person 
>would say what region they are from.   I don't think that is asked 
>today.   At least, I don't remember.

The only piece of information currently required for participation on 
a mailing list is an email address.  There are different ways to 
implement the scheme, e.g. the person can provide the additional 
piece of information if he/she is interested in it being counted for 
determining participation by country.

>I think some people have multiple "homes" but most of us are 
>primarily from one geographic region.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy