[iot-discussion] RIPE 75 draft agenda now confirmed and available
Dear colleagues, During last week’s IoT Roundtable meeting in Leeds, the attendees also discussed a draft agenda for the IoT session during the upcoming RIPE meeting in Dubai. The participants agreed to the agenda as it was previously posted to this list by my colleague Gergana: A. Update on Online Trust Alliance (OTA) - Kevin Meynell, Internet Society B. Update on Internet of Things Meeting in Leeds - Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC C. Trusted Routing in the Internet of Things - Ivana Tomic, Imperial College London D. Key Factors for the Successful Entry of Developing Countries into the Internet of Things - Farzad Ebrahimi, Internet of Things Academy of Iran E. Discussion on Future Work and Draft Charter (Open Microphone) The talks by Ivana and Farzad have been submitted via the RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative (RACI). This draft agenda is now also available via https://ripe75.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/iot/ We hope to see you all in Dubai on Tuesday 24 October from 14:00 to 15:30 local time. As this is now part of the main RIPE meeting programme, this session will also offer remote participation for those unable to join us in Dubai. A more detailed report regarding the Roundtable in Leeds, which also involved some discussion related to item E is being prepared and we aim to publish that next week. Should you have any questions please feel free to respond to this list or me personally. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
Hi,
A. Update on Online Trust Alliance (OTA) - Kevin Meynell, Internet Society B. Update on Internet of Things Meeting in Leeds - Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC C. Trusted Routing in the Internet of Things - Ivana Tomic, Imperial College London D. Key Factors for the Successful Entry of Developing Countries into the Internet of Things - Farzad Ebrahimi, Internet of Things Academy of Iran E. Discussion on Future Work and Draft Charter (Open Microphone)
To ensure it doesn’t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items? Cheers, Rob
On 28 Sep 2017, at 14:39, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
E. Discussion on Future Work and Draft Charter (Open Microphone)
To ensure it doesn’t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items?
I am happy to discuss some agenda reshuffle, but of course that would move the risk of running over time to the (RACI) speakers. So no matter what, we need some careful time management on this session. Given that part of the Leeds meeting was to have a bit more time to discuss work, I would like to suggest that we at least leave that report to go be ahead of the discussion. I’ll hereby promise I’ll be brief in my presentation. Happy to hear how others on this list feel, MarcoH
On 28 Sep 2017, at 13:39, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
To ensure it doesn’t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items?
Good point Rob. However if this goes at the end of the agenda, the prospect of eating into the coffee/lunch/whatever break might mean those discussions will be focused and to the point. And we avoid shed-painting. Yeah, like *that’s* going to happen... :-) That said, I hope we can reach some consensus here on the WG’s charter and initial stuckees/volunteers as co-chairs. After all this is RIPE and we take decisions on mailing lists. If that consensus emerges, these topics shouldn’t need much agenda time at RIPE75. Famous last words.
On 28 Sep 2017, at 14:54, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
However if this goes at the end of the agenda, the prospect of eating into the coffee/lunch/whatever break might mean those discussions will be focused and to the point.
Meanwhile I also got a friendly nudge internally that we need a volunteer to inform the speakers about time management and other logistics, which is usually done by the chairs. If people agree, I am happy to volunteer some RIPE NCC time on this and contact everybody. My proposal would be to make a 60/30 divide on the presentations and the discussion. Splitting 60 minutes amongst 4 presentations, I would suggest 12 minutes each leaving room for 1 (or 2) questions at the end of each talk and be pretty strict on the time management (similar to lightning talks). Would leave 30 minutes for the open discussion, selection of volunteers and what else the group deems useful. Of course I also support Jim’s comment to try and sort many of that out on this list prior to the meeting. Any comments or objections to the proposed time plan, regardless of order? And are people comfortable with us coordinating this with the speakers (I’ll be mailing myself) on behalf of this cabal? Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
On 28 Sep 2017, at 15:25, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net> wrote:
Meanwhile I also got a friendly nudge internally that we need a volunteer to inform the speakers about time management and other logistics, which is usually done by the chairs.
If people agree, I am happy to volunteer some RIPE NCC time on this and contact everybody.
+1. This seems the best way to proceed for Dubai. Go for it Marco.
Any comments or objections to the proposed time plan, regardless of order? And are people comfortable with us coordinating this with the speakers (I’ll be mailing myself) on behalf of this cabal?
Works for me. Thanks, Marco. Rob
Hi, On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 01:54:45PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
On 28 Sep 2017, at 13:39, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
To ensure it doesn???t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items?
Good point Rob. However if this goes at the end of the agenda, the prospect of eating into the coffee/lunch/whatever break might mean those discussions will be focused and to the point. And we avoid shed-painting. Yeah, like *that???s* going to happen... :-)
That said, I hope we can reach some consensus here on the WG???s charter and initial stuckees/volunteers as co-chairs.
as I mentioned in Leeds I'd be willing to jump in as a co-chair. I won't be able to be present in Dubai though. Somewhat unrelated: the slides of my contribution to the roundtable can be found here: https://www.ernw.de/download/RIPE_IoT_Roundtable_Sep2017_EnnoRey_BalancedIPv... cheers Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Matthias Luft, Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 01:39:08PM +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
To ensure it doesn???t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items?
to accelerate things a bit, can we agree to not come up with the umpteenth chair selection procedure document and just start with, guess what, the DNS WG's? Thanks, Peter
Hi Peter,
To ensure it doesn???t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items?
to accelerate things a bit, can we agree to not come up with the umpteenth chair selection procedure document and just start with, guess what, the DNS WG's?
Fully agree that we should adopt an existing one (that's what we did for ipv6-wg.) I struggle with the "draw lots" clause though; I think when there are multiple remaining candidates, the WG ought to express a preference. I know there's no perfect way to do this, but RIPE has existing models (that must surely be at least as representative as drawing lots.) So I propose the procedure used by ipv6-wg and aa-wg. https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/ipv6-wg-chair-selection-proces... <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/ipv6-wg-chair-selection-process> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/anti-abuse/anti-abuse-wg-chair-sele... <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/anti-abuse/anti-abuse-wg-chair-selection-process> Since the ipv6-wg text doesn't name the specific WG except at the very top, I suggest to use that as the reference text. All the best, Anna -- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On 3 Oct 2017, at 15:32, Anna Wilson <anna.wilson@heanet.ie> wrote:
Fully agree that we should adopt an existing one (that's what we did for ipv6-wg.) I struggle with the "draw lots" clause though; I think when there are multiple remaining candidates, the WG ought to express a preference.
Well that’s what’s supposed to happen Anna. The WG reaches consensus on their preferred candidate. But suppose it doesn’t or can't. Then what? IMO a “draw lots” thing is the simplest and most convenient way to resolve matters when a selection by consensus is unclear or isn’t possible: for instance, when support for two or more candidates is pretty much equal. A random selection mechanism like drawing lots provides a very pragmatic way to break those sort of deadlocks. Other ways to resolve a tie are of course possible. However they are likely to end up in a monument to process. And probably less robust/effective too. Besides, if the names of the tied candidates all go into a hat, those who wish to shed-paint can get to debate who holds the hat, how big it is, what it’s made from, etc, etc. :-)
Hi Jim, all,
Fully agree that we should adopt an existing one (that's what we did for ipv6-wg.) I struggle with the "draw lots" clause though; I think when there are multiple remaining candidates, the WG ought to express a preference.
Well that’s what’s supposed to happen Anna. The WG reaches consensus on their preferred candidate. But suppose it doesn’t or can't. Then what?
Then we follow the three sentences beginning with the words "If the result is unclear."
IMO a “draw lots” thing is the simplest and most convenient way to resolve matters when a selection by consensus is unclear or isn’t possible: for instance, when support for two or more candidates is pretty much equal. A random selection mechanism like drawing lots provides a very pragmatic way to break those sort of deadlocks. Other ways to resolve a tie are of course possible. However they are likely to end up in a monument to process. And probably less robust/effective too.
Here's the text (already in use by ipv6-wg): "If possible the Chair should be elected by acclamation by the WG or by consensus after discussion. If the result is unclear, then a secret ballot should be held. In the case of a ballot, votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority." We've had ballots lots of times for the ASO AC elections. I even went through that process as a candidate myself. I disagree strongly with the characterisation of this as a monument to process.
Besides, if the names of the tied candidates all go into a hat, those who wish to shed-paint can get to debate who holds the hat, how big it is, what it’s made from, etc, etc. :-)
I do think it's crucial that the WG should try to get to the point of consensus, and everyone who wants to participate in that should be able to. What I feel most strongly about is that, when consensus hasn't been reached, and we're at the point where we have to make a decision in the room – there must be a secret ballot. Without a secret ballot, the constituency is effectively those who are willing to speak at the mic. This is ok when deciding about policy. I think it's not ok when deciding about people. All the best, Anna -- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On 3 Oct 2017, at 17:19, Anna Wilson <anna.wilson@heanet.ie> wrote:
Then we follow the three sentences beginning with the words "If the result is unclear."
... Here's the text (already in use by ipv6-wg):
"If possible the Chair should be elected by acclamation by the WG or by consensus after discussion. If the result is unclear, then a secret ballot should be held. In the case of a ballot, votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority.”
One of the problems I have with that (as we discussed off-line) Anna is it disenfranchises those who are not physically in the room. I’m never going to be comfortable using elections when there’s no obvious membership or elgibility criteria to decide who gets to vote. Think about a bad actor and her 1000 new Facebook friends or someone who literally drags people in off the street to vote.
We've had ballots lots of times for the ASO AC elections.
This is a very different thing from choosing a WG co-chair and it’s not wise to conflate the two. And yes, I know we vote for the PC too. That’s not the same thing either. Members of the PC and ASO don’t have the influence over RIPE policy-making that a WG co-char has.
Hi Jim, all,
We've had ballots lots of times for the ASO AC elections.
This is a very different thing from choosing a WG co-chair and it’s not wise to conflate the two. And yes, I know we vote for the PC too. That’s not the same thing either. Members of the PC and ASO don’t have the influence over RIPE policy-making that a WG co-char has.
To be clear, I raise this only to address the concern about the "monument to process"; it's a simple process that's already proven to be workable elsewhere in the meeting. I agree that the context is certainly different, and the concern about disenfranchisement is reasonable, so I tried to address it separately in the subsequent paragraphs. To repeat: We should try to reach consensus first, with everyone who wants to participate. When we're at the point where we have to make a decision in the room, then without a secret ballot, the constituency is effectively those who are willing to speak at the mic. This is ok when deciding about policy. I think it's not ok when deciding about people. Best regards, Anna -- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
+ 1 with Anna. Filiz On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Anna Wilson <anna.wilson@heanet.ie> wrote:
Hi Jim, all,
We've had ballots lots of times for the ASO AC elections.
This is a very different thing from choosing a WG co-chair and it’s not wise to conflate the two. And yes, I know we vote for the PC too. That’s not the same thing either. Members of the PC and ASO don’t have the influence over RIPE policy-making that a WG co-char has.
To be clear, I raise this only to address the concern about the "monument to process"; it's a simple process that's already proven to be workable elsewhere in the meeting.
I agree that the context is certainly different, and the concern about disenfranchisement is reasonable, so I tried to address it separately in the subsequent paragraphs. To repeat: We should try to reach consensus first, with everyone who wants to participate.
When we're at the point where we have to make a decision in the room, then without a secret ballot, the constituency is effectively those who are willing to speak at the mic. This is ok when deciding about policy. I think it's not ok when deciding about people.
Best regards, Anna
-- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 <+353%201%20660%209040> anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
_______________________________________________ iot-discussion mailing list iot-discussion@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
On 28 Sep 2017, at 14:39, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Hi,
A. Update on Online Trust Alliance (OTA) - Kevin Meynell, Internet Society B. Update on Internet of Things Meeting in Leeds - Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC C. Trusted Routing in the Internet of Things - Ivana Tomic, Imperial College London D. Key Factors for the Successful Entry of Developing Countries into the Internet of Things - Farzad Ebrahimi, Internet of Things Academy of Iran E. Discussion on Future Work and Draft Charter (Open Microphone)
To ensure it doesn’t get pushed off the bottom due to time, should the discussion of the charter and the appointment of co-chairs be a bit further up the list of agenda items?
All, As the "volunteer chair” for this session, I am currently in the process of putting some slides together and finalising the planning. I’ve spoken to all presenters (including myself) and everybody confirmed to stick to “lightning talk” format and make sure the talks fit within 15 minutes. So provided we accept that this is a hard limit and keep questions to also fit within the allocated time, it should work. But, that is theory and might force me to cut people off. So I would like to take up the suggestion and move the discussion forward. That of course could imply that we need to cut that off to allow for our guests to speak, but if could reduce the risk of running out of time. So my proposal would be to take this in the order B, E, A, C and D. Using the reporting from Leeds as a lead in to the discussion towards potential future work, charter and other governance requirements such as a chair selection procedure. From the list discussion I have a feeing that we are not that far off from consensus, so I expect this agenda item to be wrapped up within the 30 minutes we have for it and might even leave a bit more time for our guests to showcase their work to our community. Happy to take the lists advice on this matter. If there are no objections raised over the coming days, I’ll ask my colleagues to change the agenda to the proposed order. Regards, Marco Hogewoning “RIPE 75 IoT session coordinator"
On 20/10/2017 16:16, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
... So my proposal would be to take this in the order B, E, A, C and D. Using the reporting from Leeds as a lead in to the discussion towards potential future work, charter and other governance requirements such as a chair selection procedure. ...
Makes sense to me. Daniel
On 20 Oct 2017, at 16:16, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net> wrote:
So my proposal would be to take this in the order B, E, A, C and D. Using the reporting from Leeds as a lead in to the discussion towards potential future work, charter and other governance requirements such as a chair selection procedure.
Works for me. Regards Denesh
participants (9)
-
Anna Wilson -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Denesh Bhabuta -
Enno Rey -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Jim Reid -
Marco Hogewoning -
Peter Koch -
Rob Evans