Subject: Re: [Diversity] ISOC fellowship - Attracting new people and work into the IETF

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:04:53 +0200

Hi SM,
thank you for pointing out this subject.

you wrote:
> At 16:32 24-09-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
>> I'd suggest that the selection criteria be modified to prioritise
>> people who have been contributing over time to real IETF work; and
>> add some WG chairs/ADs to the evaluation panel (or whatever's done)
>> who can help evaluate that; and increase the numbers of fellows who
>> match the above "active participant" criterion. (I dunno how many
>> of any kind of fellow are sponsored.)
> 
> There is an evaluation panel. I can argue for having some WG Chairs
> and ADs on the evaluation panel. The IESG will have to find the
> people who can commit to do that work.

An alternative to putting more work on the chairs is to establish
objective criteria.  For example, let's state that the authors of WG
drafts deserve the right to participate to IETF meetings.  In case an
author's employer cannot pay her/his traveling and accomodation
expenses, they will be covered by the new ISOC fellowship program,
which would thereby consider also technologists from collapsing countries.

Formalization of a WG draft would include a ritual question such as
"In case you will/need to participate to IETF meetings, are you or
your employer going to pay travel expenses?"  That question should be
asked after the WG choice of the pen-holders, so as not to affect it.
 That way, the decision can be made without an evaluation panel.

Let me add, en passant, that it would be useful to have a panel to
evaluate the financial health of software houses, instead.  Besides
fellowship programs, such knowledge could help users of free software
to manage their donations fairly.

jm2c

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:23:31 -0430

Hi,

>>> of any kind of fellow are sponsored.)

In fact I believe this is something that occurs right now, if you are
applying for the fellowship and you have participated, collaborated
with RFCs, draft or other way you have more chances to get it.

>> people who can commit to do that work.

This might be a good idea but probably it does not worth to do it. I
mean, you don't need real experts to evaluate the application. In case
the applicant can demostrate he has participated in IETF thru mailing
list, researchs, draft, etc imho it's enough.

> which would thereby consider also technologists from collapsing countries.

It would be interesting to know how many applicant really have a draft.

> to manage their donations fairly.

ISOC should not be the only one to grant fellowships to attend IETF.

>
> jm2c
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

-- 
=====
^A.......o$

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:23:11 -0700

Hi Alessandro, Alejandro,

Thanks for the feedback.

>which would thereby consider also technologists from collapsing countries.

My preference is not to discuss about the right to participate as 
that might cause problems.

There are a lot of authors of WG drafts.  There may be cases where it 
would be beneficial to the IETF to have an author who cannot attend a 
meeting due to financial difficulties be in the room.  I'll list that 
as a case to look into.

>  That way, the decision can be made without an evaluation panel.

In my opinion it is not possible to do the above as it is going to be 
an IETF problem to pay for travel expenses.

>to manage their donations fairly.

Unfortunately, I cannot list the above as part of this initiative.

>with RFCs, draft or other way you have more chances to get it.

There was a comment about prioritising people who have been 
contributing over time to real IETF work.  One of the problems 
mentioned is that the IETF needs more people reading and reviewing 
and commenting on work in progress (working group drafts).

>list, researchs, draft, etc imho it's enough.

The argument to have Area Directors and Working Group Chairs on the 
evaluation panel is that they have a better understanding of IETF 
work and who is actively participating in IETF work.

I agree about the "demonstrate that he/she has participated in the 
IETF through mailing lists" in the above.  I did a quick verification 
of a few persons who listed their participation in IETF working 
groups.  I did not find any reviews of working group drafts from them.

>It would be interesting to know how many applicant really have a draft.

Ok.

>ISOC should not be the only one to grant fellowships to attend IETF.

That's a good point.  I cannot list this as part of the initiative though.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:30:50 +0530

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:53 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alessandro, Alejandro,At 08:53 27-09-2013, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>
> There was a comment about prioritising people who have been contributing
> over time to real IETF work.  One of the problems mentioned is that the
> IETF needs more people reading and reviewing and commenting on work in
> progress (working group drafts).

That is already happening. Not sure what the debate is about. At least for
the first time fellows, I have seen that fellows showing good commitment to
the IETF (participating in the IETF mailing list, commenting on drafts,
getting involved in the local community/academia) are prioritized over
others. Every year the quality and diversity of the applicants is going up.

> evaluation panel is that they have a better understanding of IETF work and
> who is actively participating in IETF work.
>
> I agree about the "demonstrate that he/she has participated in the IETF
> through mailing lists" in the above.  I did a quick verification of a few
> persons who listed their participation in IETF working groups.  I did not
> find any reviews of working group drafts from them.
>

There may be people who do not review drafts but give a good perspective on
the implementation details. For example I have seen many people have
contributed code to reference implementations of HTTP/2.0 and give good
reason why some compressions codecs are better than others. I believe such
contributions are just as valuable as reviewing drafts. If anything we need
more and better perspective from implementers and deployers.

Also I do not agree that we should have ADs (extremely overloaded with IETF
work) and WG Chairs (too numerous) on the evaluation panel (it is good to
have some but it will not be comprehensive). However if someone is ready to
volunteer, it would be good to have them. There are already people who
are/were ADs and WG chairs on the panel.

-- Vinayak

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:03:57 -0700

Hi Vinayak,
At 11:00 27-09-2013, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
>That is already happening. Not sure what the debate is about. At 
>least for the first time fellows, I have seen that fellows showing 
>good commitment to the IETF (participating in the IETF mailing list, 
>commenting on drafts, getting involved in the local 
>community/academia) are prioritized over others. Every year the 
>quality and diversity of the applicants is going up.

Ok.

>There may be people who do not review drafts but give a good 
>perspective on the implementation details. For example I have seen 
>many people have contributed code to reference implementations of 
>HTTP/2.0 and give good reason why some compressions codecs are 
>better than others. I believe such contributions are just as 
>valuable as reviewing drafts. If anything we need more and better 
>perspective from implementers and deployers.

In my opinion what you wrote above is would also be considered as 
part of reviewing work in progress.  I agree that we need more and 
better perspective from implementers and deployers.

>Also I do not agree that we should have ADs (extremely overloaded 
>with IETF work) and WG Chairs (too numerous) on the evaluation panel 
>(it is good to have some but it will not be comprehensive). However 
>if someone is ready to volunteer, it would be good to have them. 
>There are already people who are/were ADs and WG chairs on the panel.

The suggestion to have Area Director and WG Chairs was made by an 
Area Director.  I assume that the Area Director is agreeable to 
committing time to it.

Which Area Directors or WG Chairs are on the panel?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy