[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: [arch-d] Why closed IAB workshops ? Re: Call for Papers: Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID), 
From:       Toerless Eckert <tte () cs ! fau ! de>
Date:       2021-08-31 22:58:40
Message-ID: 20210831225840.GA58450 () faui48f ! informatik ! uni-erlangen ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

I was not saying that the live stream should be codified as a mandate but tried
out as a very simple option to explore.

I do agree that if a workshop is a hackathon then passive participation will not
work. I did not see any such coding mentioned for the planned AID or Measurement
workshops though. From their text they looked a more like interesting discussions
where passive listening would be as interesting as uhmm... CSPAN ? ;-)) (aka:
really in the eye of the beholder. I do like to listen to CSPAN based on topic).

Cheers
    Toerless 

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:56:49AM +0100, Colin Perkins wrote:
> Toerless,
> 
> Most of this workshop is a multi-day distributed hackathon. There is no benefit in \
> trying to live stream several days worth of live coding Python scripts. There's no \
> insights and no useful transparency to be achieved by doing that. Openness, in this \
> case, is better served by putting effort into releasing the resulting code, data \
> sets, and analysis for others to build on – and by getting the right set of \
> people together to be able to build that code and do that analysis. 
> I agree that IAB activities should be as public as possible. But policies that \
> require a particular form of openness (such as requiring a live stream, for \
> example) are not the right way of achieving that. 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> > On 30 Aug 2021, at 02:41, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Jari,
> > 
> > Thanks for the explanation, but: I did not raise any issue with the way
> > the invitations are handled as i have too little insight. All i was
> > asking for was that there should be a live stream unless there
> > is a justifyable reason for confidentiality such as chatham house rules.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Toerless
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 09:58:51PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > > Toerless,
> > > 
> > > I am personally pretty firmly in the keep-things-open camp. But I'll observe \
> > > two things. First, as you saw there was some discussion about interactions \
> > > where it has been believed that Chatham house rules have been useful. That has \
> > > indeed been the case a few times, though certainly not needed for every event. 
> > > But as a frequent member of the program committees in these events, I want to \
> > > highlight another point which may not be readily visible if you just look at \
> > > the text of these workshop descriptions. Yes, these events are by invitation \
> > > only, and there's a request to send a position paper or abstract to the \
> > > organisers, and based on that an invitation may be forthcoming. However, while \
> > > this sounds quite closed, in practice for most of the events — particularly \
> > > the virtual ones -- we tend to invite everyone who demonstrated that they were \
> > > on topic and had thought about the matter enough to write a rational \
> > > contribution. Perhaps not quite everyone every time, but still. And the program \
> > > committees tend to use the contributions also for other things, such as \
> > > deciding who we might ask to lead a session. IAB workshops generally aren't \
> > > everyone-presents-their-paper conferences, the papers are required reading \
> > > before starting the actual workshop. We do want to generate discussion, \
> > > however, so the general thrust is to ensure that we get a set of people \
> > > together who can constructively discuss the topic and take it forward. 
> > > Jari
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]