On 7/5/17, 12:30 PM, "vmeet on behalf of Alia Atlas" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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. 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? 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. 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!!] 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.] 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. 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. My 1c. Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
