Subject: [HR-rt] Check in on process

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 13:03:00 +0300

Hi all,

I wanted to get your thoughts about a proposal for this ad-hoc group
going forward:

Would it be better if the work to test IETF WG drafts against RFC 8280
came back within the fold of HRPC? This would effectively mean that we
are not using this list to coordinate reviews anymore, and are then
relying on the HRPC list and HRPC meetings to discuss the outcomes of
reviews.

Thoughts on this?

-Mallory
-- 
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:33:55 +0200

> relying on the HRPC list and HRPC meetings to discuss the outcomes of

Fine with me, especially because of the relatively low traffic on this list. When there was a bit more traffic on the reviews it streamlined the discussion to first finish the reviews here and the discuss them in hrpc. Maybe the differentiation does not necessarily make a lot of sense anymore. 

Best,

Niels

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
DATACTIVE Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:40:51 -0800

On 5/13/19 2:03 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> came back within the fold of HRPC? 

Thanks for bringing this up!  Bringing these discussions back
onto the main mailing list would expose the discussion to all
RG participants, which I think is critical for trying to get a
handle on how effective tools like RFC 8280 and draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines
are for forming the basis for useful HR evaluations and for
writing HR considerations sections.  It seems to me that understanding
the applicability of the documents in practice is necessarily an
activity internal to the research group and that it would be
enormously valuable to fold the review discussions back into the
RG.  It's also the case that the existence of this mailing list
has led to some misunderstandings about the HR reviews themselves,
so there's value, I think, in removing any ambiguity around
that.

I'd love to see some discussion about metrics or criteria for
evaluating 8280 and the guidelines draft.  This is outside my
area of expertise but I do think it's part of our responsibility
as an RG to be able to make a statement about correctness.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

Software longa, hardware brevis

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:42:28 +0300

On 14/05/2019 05:40, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> Would it be better if the work to test IETF WG drafts against RFC 
>> 8280 came back within the fold of HRPC?
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up!  Bringing these discussions back onto 
> the main mailing list would expose the discussion to all RG 
> participants, which I think is critical for trying to get a handle
> on how effective tools like RFC 8280 and draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines
> are for forming the basis for useful HR evaluations and for writing
> HR considerations sections.  It seems to me that understanding the 
> applicability of the documents in practice is necessarily an
> enormously valuable to fold the review discussions back into the RG.

I agree that evaluating the usefulness of RFC 8280 as a tool should be
brought into HRPC.

> It's also the case that the existence of this mailing list has led
> to some misunderstandings about the HR reviews themselves, so
> there's value, I think, in removing any ambiguity around that.

I'd like to hear from anyone on this list who disagrees with making
non-existent this list before that happens. Let's give it another week
for comments.

> evaluating 8280 and the guidelines draft.  This is outside my area
> of expertise but I do think it's part of our responsibility as an RG
> to be able to make a statement about correctness.

Maybe Gurshabad could speak to how we can collectively feed into the
guidelines draft.

On the wider process, I think people in HRPC who are using RFC 8280 to
guide their reviews could:

 * Send a message to HRPC about drafts that might be interesting because
of a) clear connection to RFC 8280, b) requests from authors or
engagement with RFC 8280 in the I-D drafting process, or c) existence of
a human rights considerations section in an I-D.

 * CCing HRPC if someone in HRPC conducts a review and cites RFC 8280,

 * Discussion on the list and in meetings about learnings gleaned from
the review process when using RFC 8280 or the guidelines draft.

-Mallory

---

From: Gurshabad Grover <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 14:06:38 +0530

> as an RG to be able to make a statement about correctness.

This is an important point. Avri had also suggested this in her review
of the guidelines draft.

Our current mechanism is to rely on feedback about which parts were
useful (and which were not) from individuals writing HR reviews, and
modifying the draft based on consolidated feedback.

Will spend time thinking about how we can have a more formal method of
evaluating how useful RFC8280/draft-guidelines is for the community.
Open to any suggestions in this regard!

Thank you.
-GG.

---

From: Gurshabad Grover <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 14:09:18 +0530

> the review process when using RFC 8280 or the guidelines draft.

Maybe we can send this text to the hrpc list if and when we close down
the hr-rt list?

Also, we're using this pad to keep track of RFCs/IDs with a "human
rights considerations" section:
https://etherpad.net/p/Overview_of_human_rights_considerationse
Will be good to hear people's thoughts on how they're drafted and how we
can improve guidelines documents.

Thank you.
-GG.

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 12:05:23 +0300

Thanks Gurshabad,

> Maybe we can send this text to the hrpc list if and when we close down

I'll wait a bit longer if anyone has some riffs on what I've written.

> can improve guidelines documents.

We had a Gitlab at some point, but it wasn't used much. Should we also
shut that down and try to migrate the most important bits into the pad?

Should we use etherpad.ietf.org?

-Mallory

---

From: Gurshabad Grover <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 19:43:58 +0530

> shut that down and try to migrate the most important bits into the pad?

I quite like the Gitlab repo because it has all the human rights reviews
in one place. At the same time, it'll be great to have everything hrpc
related in once place (the Github org,[0] maybe?) If it's alright with
everyone, we can create a new repo in the Github repo to maintain a
record of all the hr reviews that have been done.

> Should we use etherpad.ietf.org?

Ah, yes, moved the doc here:
https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/human_rights_considerations

Thank you.
-GG.

[0] https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 13:32:38 +0300

> record of all the hr reviews that have been done.

Yes that would be excellent to move this into a new repo under the
IRTF-HRPC group.

> https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/human_rights_considerations

Thanks! Would be good to keep this link in the new repo documentation/
readme.

-Mallory