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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nalini,
At 13:18 14-07-2016, [e-mail] wrote:
>Not at all.  I feel that you are very interested in the topic (as am 
>I) and I am very glad to have your thoughtful comments.   That is 
>how we will come to the best conclusion.

Thanks.

>But I thought this MTGVENUE WG was formed to define and discuss such 
>issues.  Is this not the right place for this conversation?  Why 
>should we do it at the Plenary?

There were three points on which I commented:

   (a) we have good strong contributors participating via email

   (b) why should (a) not be counted?

   (c) I want to get consensus that we should count such things ...

The problem was about the select of meeting venues for physical 
meetings and the fact that it is a recurrent topic of 
discussion.  That is not related to (a).  At some point in the 
discussions it may be possible to figure out further discussion about 
(b) is okay or not.  You already identified what you should do 
((c)).  It is not a matter of right place for the conversation; it is 
about what would gain IETF Consensus.  I was not suggesting to try 
and do that at the plenary.

>Why do you say that they are not counted?  Is it because they are 
>participating remotely?   Do you think they THEY feel that it is 
>"better to go away"?   I think that is what we very much want NOT to happen.

There isn't any count of mailing list participation.  I would have to 
agree with the person if he/she decides that it is better to go away.

>I am going to say that [e-mail] is a somewhat special 
>case.   Some of us in the U.S. (and I count myself among them!) feel 
>quite free to voice our opinions on all kinds of topics.   We take 
>our freedom of speech seriously!   I know I feel sometimes that I 
>should probably "cool it" and go write some code instead of spouting 
>off on the [e-mail] list.  So, I suppose there may be some 
>cultural issues here.

That would be the First Amendment.  My comment was about IETF Last 
Call participation. I do not consider it (last sentence) as cultural 
issues.  I don't think that you did or said anything to discourage 
other persons from participating in any such thread.  To be clear, 
please do not read anything I said as implying that it is better for 
you or anyone else not to comment on [e-mail].

>I think it is probably more important to look at contributions to 
>actual WG lists.  I know there is the point about WGLC comments on 
>the [e-mail] list.  That complicates the issue.

WGLC comments are on the Working Group mailing list.  My suggestion 
was not to take the [e-mail] IETF Last Call participation into 
consideration for statistical purposes.

>IMHO, I think the kind of effort that you are talking about is 
>wonderful.   I don't know how others feel.

It is worthwhile to consider whether the effort would produce results.

>The IETF Mentoring program has been trying to put together Internet 
>Draft Review Teams with just the intent that you state above.   We 
>just started a team with 2 people from Africa, one from India and 
>one from Latin America and two mentors.   I have high hopes for such 
>teams.   Although, it takes some coordination to figure out how the 
>team can work together.  We also need some tools!!!   BTW, if anyone 
>wants to help with this, please contact me unicast.    There is 
>quite a demand for this kind of team - I have plenty of people who 
>want to be on a team that I haven't matched up.  Unfortunately,  I 
>need to do my day job every once in a while!

It was one suggested to me to have review teams.  I tried it and it 
did not work as expected.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy