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

[<[e-mail]>]

>Hi Nalini,

>It may seem like I am opposing you as I replied to several of your 
>emails.  That is not my intent.
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.
<snip>

>>As many have said, much of the IETF work is done via email 
>>lists.  So, if we have good strong contributors participating via 
>>email, then why should that NOT be counted?  So, I want to get 
>>consensus that we should count such things and then consensus on how 
>>to count, weigh, etc.


>In order to argue for that I would have to attend several IETF 
>meetings to have discussions with a significant number of 
>attendees.  Another alternative is to ask the question (remotely) at 
>the plenary.  Based on my experience of the IETF I'd say that it is 
>unlikely that I would get any support from the floor.  I suggest that 
>you have a conversation with Margaret and as she did say something 
>which is factual during a plenary meeting.

>For what it is worth, there was a person in my ex-Working Group which 
>I consider as a strong contributor.  The person and I are neither 
>from the same company nor from the same region.


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?


>>2.  There is also much discussion of the type "We held a meeting in 
>>such and such a place & how do we know if we have additional contributors?"
>>
>>My personal feeling is that there ARE additional contributors.  But, 
>>that is only my feeling and I am only one data point.  So, let's 
>>find out if there really are additional contributors.  Why have a 
>>fact-free discussion?


>As an anecdote I met someone new to the IETF.  I doubt that the 
>person would not be described as not contributing to the IETF as the 
>person has been used as an example by an IETF Chair.

>There are people who are interested in contributing and they have the 
>potential to do it.  It is unfortunate that those persons are not 
>counted; at some point it may viewed that it is better to go away.


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.


>I looked at the numbers for [e-mail].  There was only one person 
>from China who commented during the last month.  If I go back to the 
>beginning of the year, the number would be around three.  The number 
>looks insignificant in comparison with comments from persons residing 
>in the United States.  
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. 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.
<snip> 
>>3.  There is quite a bit of outreach being done by various parts of 
>>the world - India, Africa, Asia-Pacific, Russia and of course Latin 
>>America.  And, that is only what I personally know about.  I am sure 
>>that there is much more that I do not know about.
>>
>>I think it is good for these regions to know what are the specific 
>>metrics of IETF contribution so that they can gauge their own 
>>progress and also show others of the progress in their region.

>I have done outreach in my region.  If I encourage people to 
>participate in the IETF and mention that there is low participation, 
>I would be asked about what the IETF considers as "participation".  I 
>would have to provide some facts to explain why I said "low 
>participation".  

Yes.  We should have some fair, agreed on metrics.

>Should I use the statistics for recent RFCs?  Should >I use the attendance statistics which are presented by the IETF 
>Chair?  I used to follow all the working groups in an IETF Area.  I 
>knew how many persons from my region participated on the working 
>group mailing lists.

>https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2016/iab-minutes-2016-05-11/ 
>states that there were people from 11 countries, including Brazil, 
>Costa Rica, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, India, Pakistan, Morocco, 
>Ethiopia, and Benin.  According to the minutes, presenting a draft is 
>a working group activity.  If several persons from South America put 
>some effort to join a working group mailing list discussion to 
>understand a protocol better so that they can make useful comments, 
>is that a contribution from that region?  Would it be positive for 
>the region and for the IETF?

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

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!


Thanks,Nalini