[Bigbang-dev] BigBang Accessibility

[Niels ten Oever]

Hi Seb,

On 31-01-2023 13:03, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
> Niels,
> 
>     Exactly, I think our initial approach was: if we use Jupyter notebooks, we get people to understand coding/technology/infrastructure while analyzing how code/technology/infrastructure is produced. Whereas that was beautifully meta, it only worked to a certain extend.
> 
> 
> This goes back to how I wrote BigBang initially to study OSS development.
> But now it's being used to study standards development.
> 
> I wonder if there's some way to surface the standards used in BigBang, and their origin, to the dashboard users.
> With a hosted dashboard, networking and data transfer protocols are much more relevant.
> 
> What if working groups on HTTP and email standards are used as the default data sets for demos?
> 
> Maybe this is perhaps too fanciful, but it is the original spirit of the project and one of the reasons why it is called BigBang (a singularity).
> 
>     We found some great users (Corinne, Riccardo, other projects that now use BigBang), but way more people are interested in it that somehow cannot BigBang to work, or simply find the time investment to high or too fiddly. So to reach the intended researchers, we're now moving a way from Jupyter notebooks to a web environment.
> 
> 
> I think it would be best to identify this class of researchers as a particular kind of user.
> For more technical work like what Priyanka and Effy are interested in, the dashboard is likely to be secondary.
> 
>     Haha yes. I think there is a risk that with the dashboard we don't document as clearly and thorougly as we've done with BigBang, but that would also hamper its future maintenance and development and general sustainability. That is why I think it is very important we also package and document the dashboard properly.
> 
> 
> Some related questions:
>   - Does the dashboard live in a repository distinct from BigBang?

Mridul has been working on this, and he was supposed to setup a repo but I have not seen it. I really hope we can get him to Japan, but it depends on visa.

>   - Does the dashboard have a governance structure distinct from BigBang's?

I don't think it should not.

>   - Are the contribution guidelines for the dashboard the same as for BigBang?
> 

I would say so.

> Since the dashboard is more 'user-facing', it is harder to test in an automated way.
> There may be a need for different norms around the dashboard.
> 
> Adequate documentation is of course necessary.
> But does packaging mean the same thing in the context of a Python library and a ... whatever the dashboard is?
> I defer to Mridul on a lot of this stuff, as he's the master at it.

+1 but we should probably also create a setup that others than Mridul can contribute to.

> But maybe he and I should sync up on the requirements for this.

Yes pls.

> 
> It's actually not unlike some of the tensions in the Econ-ARK project we also both work on; maybe there's some general standards or principles that apply.
> 
>     Exactly for this reason Juliana is coming to the hackathon - and for this I am also planning to talk to the Tools Team and Greg Wood of ISOC who have a very good understanding of people who use the IETF website.
> 
> 
> Got it.
> What would you like to name this category of users?
> It needs a good name.
> I don't think "the intended users" is adequate because of who that excludes.
> These distinctions are part of the 'user story' work I think.

I agree - I very much have the users of the dmi summer and winterschool in mind (where we once worked on BigBang :) ). These are people that want to investigate using data, but do no necessarily have a lot of know-how on this.

> 
>     AFAIK users want to understand three things:
> 
>     1. Who is involved and how (affiliation, process, contestations, nationality)
>     2. What is developed (technology)
>     3. What are trends (combination of one and two)
> 
> 
> This is a great breakdown.
> I think I have a good sense of how (1) is operationalized in BigBang.
> 
> I actually don't have a great sense of (2) -- are these the RFC drafts, in the IETF?

Somehow - I think a lot of researchers are not acquinted with the detail of the standards bodies, so they do not know what exactly the different WGs and Areas are working on. Making this more insightful would really increase the accessibility I think. But this would then almost be a primer, and then before you know it you have a document the size of the Tao of the IETF (which is not something we should want).

> I was actually under the impression that most 'technology development' happens outside of IETF, and that IETF is primarily about standardization, which is a kind of explicit norm formation around what certain technical designs are named, combined with some amount of more-or-less explicit buy-in to use those standards?
> 

Well, it is the production of interoperation between different approaches, and since both approaches will probably be amended there is the production of new technology. But yes, development happens before, during, and after standardization. That is why implementing a DNS server according to the DNS specs will (weirdly) not get you a functioning and interoperable DNS server!

> I.e., maybe 'norm formation' is actually what happens at the IETF, as opposed to 'technology development'.
> In which case, all this theoretical discussion about the nature of norms is actually essential.
> 
> But maybe I am late to getting up to speed on this. Are there more straightforward ways to track what standards are developed in IETF data?
> RFCs, ok, anything else?
> 
>     These are the people that currently manage the datatracker and produce many of the metrics.
> 
> 
> Are their users the same as the 'intended researcher' category that includes Juliana, Corinne, and Riccardo?
> 

No, they strongly aim at IETF participant and potential IETF participants.

> I got the sense at the AID hackathon that there was another category of users, which we might call "internet governance users" (or something) who don't publish papers about SDOs and human rights, but are interested in data about the IETF etc. for administrative purposes.

Very much so, that is also very much leadership.

> 
> It might be good to distinguish between these groups in order to focus development of the dashboard on the most important group.
> 
>     We can discuss this further - I don't think funding depends on that. What I am very curious about is how we can entice developers to work on this, and ensure this happens in a structured and sustainable manner.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I think that in this economy, the best way to 'entice developers' is to pay them.

I am not sure that is even enough.

> The second best way is to inspire students or hobbyists to contribute. But that gets harder and harder the more the 'developer' role is attenuated from the 'user' role.
> 

Hmmmm will need to think more.

Niels

> - S

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina

Vice chair - Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)

W: https://nielstenoever.net
E: mail at nielstenoever.net
T: @nielstenoever
P/S/WA: +31629051853
PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C

Read my latest article on network ideologies and how 5G reshapes the internet https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001446
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/bigbang-dev/attachments/20230131/20b451e9/attachment-0001.sig>