[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[Brian E Carpenter]

Jeremy,

I suspect this very interesting meta-discussion would be ruled out
of scope on many mailing lists, but you raise some important points.

On 21/12/2013 16:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:12 am, S Moonesamy <sm+1net at elandsys.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 3. How would the concerns of those not present in the discussion be dealt with?  (let's assume their concerns/knowledge are important, may influence the direction of the discussion, but they are not able to participate for a variety of reasons)
>> The discussion is open to anyone.  If a person does not voice out his/her concerns it is not an important concern.  For what it is worth, decisions are taken on a mailing list.  That provides a low barrier to participation (ignoring the time element).
> 
> In my opinion this is the source of a lot of the friction between the technical community and the other stakeholder groups.  Few governments work on mailing lists.  

There's a reason for that. All governments, even those elected by proportional
representation, turn out to consider themselves to be in charge. On a mailing
list (or any kind of open forum) that authority is not respected. This makes
governments, and many civil servants, quite uncomfortable. It's similar to
the way most governments detest popular referenda.

> People whose culture places a high priority on the avoidance of interpersonal conflict don't work on mailing lists.  

Really? Firstly I doubt that there is any polity without interpersonal
conflict. However, it's true that in some cultures it is less overt and
is hidden by rules of politeness. Certainly, without some well-respected
rules of conduct, mailing lists can become difficult. All I can say is
that people from a number of cultures viewed in the West as 'respect cultures'
have adapted very well to the IETF's netiquette. But it doesn't happen
overnight, that's for sure.

> People who don't speak English don't work on English language mailing lists.  

Correct. That one can only be fixed by money, to pay translators, so that
a mailing list could run in several languages. (Machine translation is very
definitely insufficient, although I have to give Google credit for
'La traduction automatique est très nettement insuffisant.')

> People without a technical background, but who have important insights from other disciplines to contribute to technical discussions, do not work on technical mailing lists.  

Indeed not, in general, but there is a reason for that. Technical
mailing lists have specific goals and therefore have quite restrictive
charters. Charter a list to discuss "Impacts of illiteracy on Internet
application layer protocols" and you've created a forum where two
communities can meet and discuss.

> People who don't know that a mailing list exists or that participation on it is important to their interests don't work on mailing lists.

Well yes, but that applies to any human endeavour.

> That's a lot of people!
> 
> So, having a mailing list that is open is not adequate to ensure the inclusiveness of a process, or that any concern that hasn't been voiced on that list are "not an important concern".  To do that, much more proactive outreach and capacity building is needed.  This takes time and expense.  

Indeed it does. Actually, that's why the ISOC chapters have always
seemed very important to me, but there are billions of people to reach.

> One of the most important roles of organised civil society is to seek to represent (in a loose sense) the perspectives of those who are unable to participate directly, but we are chronically underfunded and understaffed and we struggle to fulfil this responsibility.  Speaking personally, I can't count on my fingers the number of technical committees that I think are important, where consumers are not represented, and where my organisation doesn't have the resources to represent them.

How is the Internet business any different in that respect from, say,
the processed food industry? I'm not trying to be clever - I'd really
like to understand what's different. ISPs and food processing companies
both deal with mass-market customers and aim to maximise their profits.
Consumer groups have been remarkably unsuccessful at beating back processed
food and all the harm it produces. Is there a difference, or is this
just the way modern society works?

   Brian