MAT WG as an advisory body for RIPE NCC tools
Greetings, all, We ran out of time today to discuss the proposal I alluded to at the beginning of the meeting, so I'm taking it to the mailing list: I would propose that we make the role of MAT WG in providing information and advice to the RIPE NCC's tools teams more explicit. In this proposal, mat-wg@ripe.net mailing would be considered a primary channel for proposals for features for RIPE Atlas. These proposals would then be discussed on the list and/or during MAT WG meetings, and once the discussion on converges, the outcome passed to the RIPE NCC tools team as advice. This would turn the current process, where the tools team disseminates updates about current work and future plans, into a two way street. While I propose that this should be more explicit, I am not proposing that this be made more formal: this would not use the PDP, and would not be in any way binding on the NCC. What do you, the WG, think? Thanks, cheers, Brian (as MAT-WG co-chair)
Hi all, Thanks Brian for the proposal. On 17/10/2019 17:27, Brian Trammell (RIPE) wrote:
Greetings, all,
We ran out of time today to discuss the proposal I alluded to at the beginning of the meeting, so I'm taking it to the mailing list:
I would propose that we make the role of MAT WG in providing information and advice to the RIPE NCC's tools teams more explicit. In this proposal, mat-wg@ripe.net mailing would be considered a primary channel for proposals for features for RIPE Atlas. I support this idea and I would extend it to all R&D RIPE NCC projects (not only Atlas), including RIPEstat, RIS, and RIPE IPmap. If we want to officially adopt this mailing list as a "primary channel", we need the approval from the R&D team. In any case, I'm strongly in favour of this proposal also because it would increase public trackability of feature requests and provide a clear roadmap for the future developments of the projects.
These proposals would then be discussed on the list and/or during MAT WG meetings, and once the discussion on converges, the outcome passed to the RIPE NCC tools team as advice. This would turn the current process, where the tools team disseminates updates about current work and future plans, into a two way street. I agree on providing the advice only after the discussion converges, in a way to don't introduce additional overhead on the R&D team.
I would anyway prefer the discussion to happen in the list, more than in the meetings. I love the MAT as a session for researchers and developers from all over the region/world to share their results in the field. Unfortunately the session is already too short and I'm scared that possible discussions will move the focus even more towards RIPE Atlas. We could actually move this to a dedicated measurements/tools BoF!
While I propose that this should be more explicit, I am not proposing that this be made more formal: this would not use the PDP, and would not be in any way binding on the NCC.
Agreed 100% Ciao, Massimo
What do you, the WG, think?
Thanks, cheers,
Brian (as MAT-WG co-chair)
Dear all, On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:49:41PM +0000, Massimo Candela wrote:
On 17/10/2019 17:27, Brian Trammell (RIPE) wrote:
I would propose that we make the role of MAT WG in providing information and advice to the RIPE NCC's tools teams more explicit. In this proposal, mat-wg@ripe.net mailing would be considered a primary channel for proposals for features for RIPE Atlas.
What other channels exist today? I know of some: - https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-atlas/ - hallway discussions - issues filed in github Perhaps other channels exist as well? It is hard to control what channels exist, but we can try to make sure they all are inputs to the same people. I think it is a great idea to confirm with RIPE NCC that their R&D staff closely monitor all discussions on this mailing list (and engage where they can contribute) as part of their normal duties. Kind regards, Job
Hi, We also created this page on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/tools It lists all current RIPE NCC R&D tools together with their status. You can leave feedback and comments under each tool. Mirjam On 22/10/2019 02:19, Job Snijders wrote:
Dear all,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 08:49:41PM +0000, Massimo Candela wrote:
On 17/10/2019 17:27, Brian Trammell (RIPE) wrote:
I would propose that we make the role of MAT WG in providing information and advice to the RIPE NCC's tools teams more explicit. In this proposal, mat-wg@ripe.net mailing would be considered a primary channel for proposals for features for RIPE Atlas.
What other channels exist today? I know of some:
- https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-atlas/ - hallway discussions - issues filed in github
Perhaps other channels exist as well? It is hard to control what channels exist, but we can try to make sure they all are inputs to the same people.
I think it is a great idea to confirm with RIPE NCC that their R&D staff closely monitor all discussions on this mailing list (and engage where they can contribute) as part of their normal duties.
Kind regards,
Job
Hi all, I like the idea:-) Best, /ck
On 17. Oct 2019, at 17:27, Brian Trammell (RIPE) <ietf+ripe@trammell.ch> wrote:
Greetings, all,
We ran out of time today to discuss the proposal I alluded to at the beginning of the meeting, so I'm taking it to the mailing list:
I would propose that we make the role of MAT WG in providing information and advice to the RIPE NCC's tools teams more explicit. In this proposal, mat-wg@ripe.net mailing would be considered a primary channel for proposals for features for RIPE Atlas. These proposals would then be discussed on the list and/or during MAT WG meetings, and once the discussion on converges, the outcome passed to the RIPE NCC tools team as advice. This would turn the current process, where the tools team disseminates updates about current work and future plans, into a two way street.
While I propose that this should be more explicit, I am not proposing that this be made more formal: this would not use the PDP, and would not be in any way binding on the NCC.
What do you, the WG, think?
Thanks, cheers,
Brian (as MAT-WG co-chair)
On 2019-10-17 17:27, Brian Trammell (RIPE) wrote:
Greetings, all,
We ran out of time today to discuss the proposal I alluded to at the beginning of the meeting, so I'm taking it to the mailing list:
I would propose that we make the role of MAT WG in providing information and advice to the RIPE NCC's tools teams more explicit. In this proposal, mat-wg@ripe.net mailing would be considered a primary channel for proposals for features for RIPE Atlas. These proposals would then be discussed on the list and/or during MAT WG meetings, and once the discussion on converges, the outcome passed to the RIPE NCC tools team as advice. This would turn the current process, where the tools team disseminates updates about current work and future plans, into a two way street.
While I propose that this should be more explicit, I am not proposing that this be made more formal: this would not use the PDP, and would not be in any way binding on the NCC.
What do you, the WG, think?
Thanks, cheers,
Brian (as MAT-WG co-chair)
Hi Brian, Speaking from the NCC's perspective: I believe this could be a good idea. The devil, as always, is in the details :-) For example, in the RIPE Atlas context, we're consciously encouraging people who we talk to the float their ideas of new features, behaviour, direction, ... on the RIPE Atlas mailing list, because that's mostly where the relevant users are. So arguably, for RIPE Atlas at least, we already have the "two way channel" you mention. Your proposal would divert some of that focus into this WG. RIPEstat does not have its own mailing list, but it does make use of third party tools (usersnap and feature upvote) to collect and prioritise bugs and feature requests. The way I think about it this working group includes, by its very definition, interested parties in Internet measurements -- including and beyond the tools the NCC provides. I'm very grateful to all the discussions seen, ideas presented etc. in this area and consider this very useful to better understand what the community needs are, and where our tools can provide the most benefits to RIPE NCC members and others. This is in addition to the benefits of having the discussion about specific tools on their respective mailing lists (if applicable). Regards, Robert
participants (6)
-
Brian Trammell (RIPE) -
Christian Kaufmann -
Job Snijders -
Massimo Candela -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Robert Kisteleki