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

[<[e-mail]>]

Thanks so much for your comments.  Mine inline.
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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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".

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


>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?

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


>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.

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.  

>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 think this question of levels of participation is getting difficult, as you bring up below.  

>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.

Sure.

>  (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.

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.   
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. 

>   (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.

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

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

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. 

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