INTERNET-DRAFT N. Elkins
Inside Products
V. Hegde
Intended Status: Best Current Practice Consultant
Expires: May 3, 2017 October 30, 2016
Definition of Participation Metrics for IETF Attendees
draft-elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-01
Abstract
IETF meetings are held physically in various geographic regions of
the world. One of the criteria for choosing a location is the amount
of participation by the people in that region. Additionally,
questions arise as to whether holding a physical meeting in a
location increases the amount of participation by local attendees.
Participation in the IETF process may occur in a number of different
ways: email lists, writing drafts, physical or remote attendance at a
meeting, chairing Working Groups and so on. This document defines the
metrics and terms which may be used to measure participation both
before and after an IETF meeting.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Geographic outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Encouraging Participation from New Regions . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Motivation for New Geographic Regions to Participate . . . . 3
2 Participation and its Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 What does Participation Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Ways to Participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Email Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Authoring Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Authoring Seminal Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4 Starting a new Working Group or BOF . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.5 Remote Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.6 Attending Physical Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.7 Participating as a Leader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.8 Participation in standards implementation. . . . . . . . 6
2.2.9 Participation in tools development . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Measuring Contributions following a Physical IETF Meeting . . . 6
4 Guidelines for tracking metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 Phase 1 - Non-binding metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 Phase 2 - How to measure them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 Phase 3 - Accept as input for meetings . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
1 Introduction
IETF meetings are held physically in various geographic regions of
the world. One of the criteria for choosing a location is the amount
of participation by the people in that region. Additionally,
questions arise as to whether holding a physical meeting in a
location increases the amount of participation by local attendees.
Participation in the IETF process may occur in a number of different
ways: email lists, writing drafts, physical or remote attendance at a
meeting, chairing Working Groups and so on. This document defines the
metrics and terms which may be used to measure participation both
before and after an IETF meeting.
1.1 Geographic outreach
The document [I-D.sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions] "Prioritized
Objectives for Making Decisions in Selecting a Meeting Venue"
contains the following:
"The IETF moves its meetings around to ensure that those who can
participate in person at the meetings share the difficulty and cost
of travel. The point of such moving is emphatically not to find new
or interesting places to visit, or to undertake outreach to new
communities who would not otherwise participate in the IETF."
1.2 Encouraging Participation from New Regions
The document [I-D.baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process] "IAOC
Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process" contains the following:
"The IETF chair drives selection of "*" locations, i.e., venues
outside the usual regions, and requires community input. These
selections usually arise from evidence of growing interest and
participation in the new region. Expressions of interest from
possible hosts also factor into the meeting site selection process,
for any meeting.
Increased participation in the IETF from those other regions,
electronically or in person, could result in basic changes to the
overall pattern, and we encourage those who would like for that to
occur to encourage participation from those regions."
1.3 Motivation for New Geographic Regions to Participate
The very process of preparing for or asking for an IETF meeting to be
held in a geographic region where it has not been held before can
have a profound change on the nature of that region's relationship to
Internet Standards. It can change the thinking from being
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
"consumers" of standards to "developers" of standards. It may help
create a core group both within the region and from the diaspora to
mentor and foster new work. This can have a long lasting impact on
the network professionals of that geographic area. Planning for an
IETF meeting to be held in a region can be a concrete rallying point
to create such empowerment and change.
All the above factors speak to the need to define more clearly what
"participation" means and how to measure it objectively.
2 Participation and its Nature
2.1 What does Participation Mean?
There are two ways to contribute to the IETF process: fundamental
participation and process participation.
Fundamental Participation: fundamental participation means active
contribution to substantive IETF work. The work of the IETF is to
develop protocol standards, so a fundamental contribution is in
protocol development. Having said that, the reason for a protocol
standard or a Working Group is to solve a problem which exists on the
Internet. A new standard is not developed in isolation in someone's
head. It is a result of discussions both face to face and
electronically, sometimes lasting for several years. Additionally,
one Internet Draft or one conversation can lead to changing a view
point or sparking ideas for other contributors.
Process Participation: the IETF organism needs support to maintain
and improve itself. Groups such as mentoring, education, outreach,
diversity, meeting venue and so on attempt to improve the functioning
of the IETF organism. Involvement in such groups is necessary to the
IETF but is of a different nature than a contribution to a protocol
standard. Having said that, involvement in process groups may be a
way to build a network of contacts which then may lead to
conversations about protocol problems which then may lead to a new
protocol standard. Involvement in process groups is very much
needed by the IETF and it may be a way for new people to work their
way towards fundamental participation.
2.2 Ways to Participate
Traditionally, work in the IETF consists of interactions and decision
making on email lists as well as physical meetings which are held
three times per year. New ways to participate include attending
meetings electronically at a remote hub or from a single location.
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
One may also become involved in an Internet Draft Review team. Some
methods have very little associated economic costs; others have a
high cost.
One caveat in starting to keep metrics on participation - one hopes
that people will not attempt to "game the system". That is, make
comments without merit on email lists or at the microphone in a
meeting merely to improve the statistics for the region. The social
sanctions for making comments without merit are sufficiently high
that the authors feel that baseless contributions will likely not
persist.
2.2.1 Email Lists
Posting to a Working Group email list to discuss an Internet Draft is
the way that is most open to most people. There is little barrier to
entry in terms of economic cost. An Internet connection of some type
and an access device is all that is needed.
However, there may be cultural barriers. Sometimes people
(especially when new) are not comfortable with the process of posting
to the Working Group email list or want to check with others about
their understanding of an Internet Draft before asking a question or
posting a suggestion. So, the IETF Mentoring program is starting
Internet Draft Review Teams so that would-be participants can work
with remote mentors to facilitate engagement. The desired output of
such teams is posting to an email list.
Posting to a fundamental Working Group email list should be the only
metric counted. Posting to an email list such as IETF discuss,
96attendees and so on, is not a worthy metric to gauge participation.
2.2.2 Authoring Drafts
Not all Internet Drafts become RFCs. Often, the statistic used is
that one in ten Internet Drafts become an RFC. Still, authoring a
draft shows active participation. The draft should however, spark
active discussion on the email list. If it is chosen for live
presentation at a Working Group session, then that is a high degree
of participation.
2.2.3 Authoring Seminal Drafts
Some drafts change the thinking of others. These may be seminal
ideas which are referred to by quite a few others. References to a
particular piece of work can easily be found and should be regarded
as a high degree of participation.
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
2.2.4 Starting a new Working Group or BOF
A Working Group is started to address a specific problem. Leading a
BOF or a Bar BOF which then leads to Working Group formation should
be regarded as a high degree of participation.
2.2.5 Remote Participation
One may participate electronically in Working Group sessions either
alone or at a remote hub. Merely viewing a session should not be
counted as participation. Making a comment should be counted.
Comments are kept in the minutes of the WG meeting, hence can easily
be used.
2.2.6 Attending Physical Meetings
One may attend physically and yet not contribute to the process.
Alternatively, a physical attendee may be actively engaged and have
many conversations both in fundamental and process groups. In the
end, an active physical participant will likely end up speaking at
the microphone and commenting on a draft or a discussion that is
underway in a Working Group meeting. Hence, the examination of WG
minutes should be enough to count as a participation metric.
2.2.7 Participating as a Leader
Serving in an IETF management position, Working Group chair, Area
Director, and so on can easily be measured and should be regarded as
a high degree of participation. Fundamental leadership positions
(those of standards developing groups) should be weighted more
heavily than process group leadership positions. Having said that,
it takes time and a network of contacts to become a fundamental group
leader. It also likely takes consistent physical attendance at IETF
meetings.
2.2.8 Participation in standards implementation
Standards are not useful in isolation. Implementations of standards
are important to see what happens "when the rubber meets the road".
Many times, once an idea in a draft is implemented in the real world
there are problems found either in interoperability, security or some
other areas. The IETF has recognized this with more emphasis on code
through hackathons and interaction with open source implementers.
Implementing an open source solution should also be considered as a
contribution. Often implementation of standards goes hand-in-hand
with the standard implementation.
2.2.9 Participation in tools development
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
Several tools which the IETF uses (such as datatracker) are either
completely or partially maintained by volunteers. Contribution to
these tools also helps makes interaction and tracking of activities
easier for other IETF volunteers. Additions to tools should also be
considered as contributions. These can possibly be measured in terms
on number of commits or lines of code (though admittedly these are
crude metrics).
3 Measuring Contributions following a Physical IETF Meeting
Metrics should be kept and published for the above categories
following each physical IETF meeting. Metrics may be kept by
individual and also by geographic region. The geographic region
should be country, continent and Internet Registry (APNIC, Afrinic,
etc.) This way, one can readily assess the impact of a meeting in a
particular area as well as the growth in contribution for a region.
Aspiring regions who wish to increase their IETF presence will also
have a way to show their increase in participation over time.
4 Guidelines for tracking metrics
4.1 Phase 1 - Non-binding metrics
Define a broad set of non-binding metrics. Some of the metrics can be
easily tracked such a number of drafts and meetings attended. Other
are little fuzzy such as email contributions, comments in WG on the
microphone. Make a list of these and start implementing them.
4.2 Phase 2 - How to measure them
Metrics such as email contributions can be tracked partially by
looking up email addresses of participants (and mapping them to
country against known databases such as registration history and
drafts/RFCs). Track and refine these metrics and get consensus on
which ones to track and on the implementations as well. These can be
separate drafts.
4.3 Phase 3 - Accept an input for meetings
Once these metrics are acceptably robust, they can be checked for
suitability for continued tracking. These can be used as inputs in
decision making process for meeting locations.
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics- October 30, 2016
5 Security Considerations
There are no security considerations.
6 IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
7 References
8.1 Informative References
[I-D.baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process] Baker, F., "IAOC
Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process", draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-
venue-selection-process-03 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions] Sullivan, A., "Prioritized
Objectives for Making Decisions in Selecting a Meeting Venue", draft-
sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00(work in progress), July 2016.
9 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Yoav Nir, S. Moonesamy
and Dave Crocker for their comments.
Authors' Addresses
Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
36A Upper Circle
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
United States
Phone: +1 831 659 8360
Email: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
http://www.insidethestack.com
Vinayak Hegde
Consultant
F2, First Floor, Prabhu Kunj, 7th Cross,
Eshwara Layout, Indiranagar 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560038
Phone: +91 9449834401
Email: vinayakh@gmail.com
URI: http://www.vinayakhegde.com
Elkins Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 8]