Re: [vmeet] strawman policy for handling geo-focused outreach: draft-atlas-geo-focused-activities-00.txt

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 7/12/17, 11:46 PM, "Alia Atlas" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi!

When I think about geographically-focused activities, I think about education, evangelization, maybe tutorial-like presentations.  So I think that we don’t need a lot of the structure…

However, from your answers it sounds like you’re thinking about other types of activities, ones that may require IPR disclosures, that may result in an appeal or even harassment.  On one hand, I can see how/why that type of activities may need more oversight.  On the other hand, I think that the IETF process is well scoped within WGs/Areas and it doesn’t belong in geographically-focused efforts.

IOW, discussions and decisions about IETF technology should be happening in the appropriate mailing lists and not in lists such as ietf-community-latam (just a made-up list).  I can see no reason for a discussion during an “IETF overview activity” to ever end up in a situation such that an appeal could happen: there should be no (IETF) decisions made there!

The document should be clear on the current best practice of discussing IETF technology on the appropriate lists so that we don’t end up creating any sort of parallel group that could “reach consensus”.  On the other hand (yes, I know this is my third hand!), the use of IETF mailing lists create a situation where IETF Contributions may be inadvertently made and that has to be well understood by all.

We can talk more in Prague.

Alvaro.



Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for the feedback.  I do think that you are raising excellent points for discussion so that the community can come to some consensus.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On 7/5/17, 12:30 PM, "vmeet on behalf of Alia Atlas" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Alia:

Hi!

> Here is a draft suggesting how to connect in the various geographically-focused activities into the IETF
> with light oversight and considering how various IETF policies should apply.

I love outreach, but I have some concerns about what this document seems to want to achieve…and its ability to do so.  Maybe acting a little as the Devil’s Advocate…


P1. What activities are covered?

As defined in RFC8179, an IETF Activity is one “…organized or initiated by ISOC, the IESG, or the IAB…” – in Section 4, you rationalize that because some activities “have been organized by ISOC, members of the IESG, and folks active in the Directorate.  Therefore, these Geographically-Focused IETF Activities are part of the IETF…”.  I think this is not the right conclusion.  For example, I have personally organized and participated in outreach activities – even though I am a member of the IESG, I haven’t done so at the request of the IESG (IETF Chair, etc.) nor in any related official capacity.  IOW, I think that just because an activity is organized by an active member of IETF community it doesn’t make it an IETF Activity.

Sure - not all activities would have to fall into this category.  Many of the activities have been being organized by ISOC.  There are considerations around openness, correct representation and use of the IETF name & logo, and so on.

The draft leaves the door wide open for “Not Official IETF Activities” that may still use the IETF Logo and name.  I would argue that anyone organizing this type of activity is already an active member of the IETF community…and in this case the event wouldn’t be considered an IETF Activity.  What is the difference with the characterization above?

That is a section under the use of the IETF name and logo; there are already rules in place about that.  This is, I believe, what ISOC has been using - but that's what Christian put in.

 My main point here is that it seems like the “light oversight” is really optional and, in the end, only some activities may be covered by this effort.

Right, activities that want to be considered part of the IETF, getting resources and support, and agreeing to follow professional conduct, anti-harassment, IPR disclosure, and so on where they may be influencing the standards process.

What is the alternative?  Having anyone able to use the IETF name & logo, get a mailing list, allow in only whom they want, etc?  We don't have failure or bad cases now - which is great - but if we're putting a process in place, that is necessary.


P2. Coordinators.

The appointment and oversight of coordinators for the activities doesn’t sound even close to “light oversight”.  Finding, training and supervising potentially many (many!!) coordinators is not an easy job for the Oversight Lead in the Directorate.  I would even venture to say that it could be a full-time job as, hopefully, the outreach activities spread and multiply…not to mention the complexity of multiple regions, countries, etc.

Delegating some of the work on “One-Time Activity Coordinators” just adds a level of indirection – it doesn’t necessarily simplify the process, but it may add some local knowledge. Keep in mind that the regions can be wide reaching; Latin America covers an area similar to the continental US and Europe put together. [Aside: Christian is already a great regional coordinator!!]

The idea isn't to go forth and find coordinators - much less across vast geographies - but to approve the coordinators who self-organize.  The one-time activity coordinators is intended to be exactly folks like Christian; as he described it, he does the general guidance and has a local coordinator on site.  This is simply describing the structure already in place - except for adding an "approval" step.

My intention is that the selection of coordinators is generally the same bottoms-up process that it is now where each group self-organizes.  This has worked for some in part by having folks come and ask for an IETF mailing list; I've done a bit of sanity-checking before handing it out.

The draft may still have parts describing it as appointing rather than approving; that language can be cleaned up.

How else do you have anything like an appeals path or the ability to recover if the coordinator goes AWOL?

As for training, what I'm picturing - but discussion is great - is
   a) help on use of IETF name and logo concerns - how to avoid them
   b) some support on better use of social media & communications from ISOC for doing outreach - maybe a template or two
   c) a common mailing list for coordinators to be able to share experiences and ask for advice.



P3. Localization and Openness

I think there’s an important contradiction in Section 4.4: “While the IETF works only in English, there may be some types of events where using the local language is preferable…A localization accommodation MUST NOT compromise the openness of the event for attendees.”  Events that are not conducted in English will compromise the effectiveness of participation for English-only (or non-local-language) speakers – unless these events make investment on translation facilities, for example.  The contradiction comes in the recognition that a local language may be preferred, but at the same time that openness must be guaranteed.

I would characterize language as the most important barrier for participating in the IETF (for non-native English speakers).

An example…  We just completed (last week) the 4th Pre-IETF/IRTF Workshop in Brazil, which is an event held at the Congress of the Brazilian Computing Society (CSBC).  This year all the presenters were Brazilian and made their presentations in Portuguese – an invited talk (about IoT in the context of the IETF) was presented in Spanish.  Even though a couple of the papers have a version in English, it is clear that the offered papers and the participation in the event would have significantly suffered if it had not been held in Portuguese/Spanish.  This event is not big enough yet to have translation facilities (as far as I could tell, neither did the overall CSBC event).  http://csbc2017.mackenzie.br/anais/eventos/4-wpietfirtf    [Note also that both Christian and I participated as coordinators.]


Here, you certainly have more experience than I do.  I'm happy to change that language.  If the attendees are expected to be comfortable in the local language, I didn't see not using English as compromising the openness.  Please suggest better wording.

 As I mentioned above, the contents of the document seem to be optional to whoever wants official oversight…but the process and requirements may not be in the best interest of the activity.

I hear you.  I think that you are underestimating the benefits that we have gotten because ISOC is doing the oversight for many of the outreach activities.  I've also seen how local groups can go bad, in other contexts.

Personally, I think that coordination and oversight is not needed.  Education and training (on IPR, for example) would be a fine investment for the directorate to make.  A document on best practices related to the use of IETF logo and name, communications, use of IETF resources such as mailing lists, etc. is what I think would be the best path forward.

It does try to do that as well.  I am delighted to start a more focused conversation on coordination and oversight.

Regards,
Alia


My 1c.

Alvaro.