Subject: [Diversity] Improving the IETF information system

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:08:01 +0200

Dear Jari,
IETF General Area AD,

Thanks for your message, and sorry for this long message. However, I think
that IETF information of the initial drafts is not well organised, which is
what we in General Area should recommend on from time to time for better
interaction. We work differently in life so we have
different requirements/priorities in any information system. I agree that
there are always other things that majority IETFers give more priority, but
there is no doubt that organising the IETF information system is the most
important basics for organised production specially when groups volunteer
remotely. An organised information in IETF can help progress in
work/way-of-work. Remote participants may be suffering the most and
specially if from far distance from IETF meetings. Do we support/reply
to remote authors (whom think t are organised) that submit to IETF and whom
expect a reply?

Because every one is busy in and out IETF, the only way IETF will get more
organised is when more people will share/gain their time. I try to
distinguish between policy and information system, I don't want the IETF
IS-system to be only guided/controlled by policy but preferably to be also
guided by leaders. Policies help mostly the organisation but information
system helps the participants/customer. Thanks also to our tool development
group, but do they get surveys on their developments. I am teaching
Human-Computer Interaction, and we teach that diverse customer-feedback is
very important information for the tool/system programmer. I started to
think about Human-IETF Interaction, is it enough? The more the
true-information/full-story becomes available for IETF and for
participants, the more efficient we can All review/progress.

I suggest that in future we look into IETF information systems and tools
available (in general and also in details, and how to develop it). The
submission of new drafts can be highlighted as:
presented-in-meeting, recommended by AD, recommended by ISOC Chapter,
recommended by 20 f2f-participants. For me I would like to know/distinguish
the recommendation or if it is an initial of one person or more.

I think that making things more organised is the most important issue that
the general area should look into, as IETF still needs more diverse
participants. This information system guidance is very important to help
the remote-participants and ISOC-chapters to decide which to
read/review/support/follow-up.

Best wishes

AB

IETF Participant from the African Region

The subject was: Re: Drafts that can't be serious

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> First, of course we allow everybody to post drafts. I agree with
> James’ characterisation of how we approach the various
> proposals.
>
> On the policy being easy to find, and on us saying somewhere
> that IDs are just the opinions of the authors unless adopted
> by the IETF in some fashion: I have requested a change in
> the ID page to provide that information.
>

Thanks, but still I think the general area should look into the information
system as that system is more general. We participants are part of the
system as well.

> I’m not sure we have other things do though. I’m sensitive
> to comments about the content of the policy, but I’ll note
> that we don’t do this often. In fact I cannot remember we
> have ever done this, but it could be that it is just a too
> early morning for me right now. I’ll also note that the
> policy lets us handle an exceptional situation when
> we come to it by taking it to the steering group. And
> making a judgment call on what needs to happen.
> In an emergency we can make a quick decision in
> IESG.

We need the IESG to look into evaluating the IETF information system, is
there surveys from remote users and ISOC chapters?

> So unless I hear something compelling,
> I’m going to assume that we all have other more
> urgent things to do in taking the Internet technology
> forward :-)
>

 I agree with that we have always more urgent things to do mostly outside
IETF :-),
However, I think that taking the information system forward is important
but not urgent.