INTERNET-DRAFT N. Elkins Inside Products V. Hegde Intended Status: Best Current Practice Consultant Expires: January 2017 July 18, 2016 Definition of Participation Metrics for IETF Attendees draft-elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 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 January 19, 2017 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 January 2017 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 3 Measuring Contributions following a Physical IETF Meeting . . . 6 4 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Elkins Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 January 2017 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 January 19, 2017 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 January 2017 "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 January 19, 2017 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 January 2017 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 January 19, 2017 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 January 2017 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. 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. Elkins Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics-00 January 2017 4 Security Considerations There are no security considerations. 5 IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations. 6 References 6.1 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. 7 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 Brahma Sun City, Wadgaon-Sheri Pune, Maharashtra 411014 INDIA Phone: +91 9449834401 Email: vinayakh@gmail.com URI: http://www.vinayakhegde.com Elkins Expires January 19, 2017 [Page 7]