Subject: [Diversity] Making allowances for someone

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:17:07 -0700

Hello,

The meaning of "making allowances for someone" is to allow someone to 
behave in a way that you would not usually accept, because of a 
problem or because there is a special reason.

Last week there were several messages on the ietf@ mailing list about 
"Content-free Last Call comments".  Most of the people who posted on 
the thread usually participate in discussions on the ietf@ mailing 
list.  I took a quick look at the mailing list archives for the 
previous two months.  I only saw one message from someone who is from 
China or Japan.

The IETF had a meeting in China and in Japan.  There are RFC authors 
from China and Japan.  There is an IAB member from China.  I would 
expect people from these two countries and other countries to express 
their opinions about the issues being discussed.  What is visible is 
that participants from the United States dominate the discussions.  A 
better description would be that people from the United States have 
been participating in the IETF since a long time and it is normal for 
people from the United States to control the discussions or rule it 
by superior authority.

The question I would ask is whether people who have been 
participating in IETF discussions since a long time make allowances 
for someone who has not been participating in such discussions.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:19:46 +0200

Hi SM,

I am in UK but my origin is from Africa (I do participate with
patients), but I like to have this international (the Internet World)
experience with all regions which I have been to and socially know the
culture of all regions except south america. I think I will give
allowance to people that dominate to give there input equally with
other regions (I don't want give minority any special allowance, and
also majority ones). I don't agree that North America participants are
dominating or ruling the discussions. I only beleive that great
engineers are ruled by reason within discussions. If there is
something like ruling without reason then a complain SHOULD be
produced and followed by procedures.

> for someone who has not been participating in such discussions.

Yes we all SHOULD give allowance to all (no discrimination, including
titles as well), we all participants are equal, old, new, manager, non
manager, etc. I usually get bad behaviors from some participants but I
notice the ADs with my complaints (most people don't like to complain)
and they warn/punish thoes who are out of procedure. Furthermore, no
one has the authority to *not allow participation*. People from Japan
or China, may not participate but I think they are listening and some
day they will participate (maybe when all get to respect all), and
when they do, the discussions will be interesting. IMHO, they/I don't
need allowance from any one but they/I need more opportunity/awareness
in Japan and China, that the IETF is not ruled by one region but all
regions equally depending on participation.

I think that thoes inputs that were giving me hard time SHOULD be
deleted from the IETF list and others, thoes inputs are like noise
(out of procedure) and I think some societies don't like the way
management are handling the noise. They SHOULD delet noise from the
records if they want progress in IETF. I will work on that when I get
time because management just solve future list not the past list. That
makes many not like to participate including me.

AB

On 6/16/13, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:30:59 +0700

Or that they have more time to discuss ...

	:)

	I guess is that they have more time in the ietf, I found the discussion
interesting but I felt that I didn't have many things to add, so I just
silently followed it.

regards,
as

On 6/17/13 12:17 AM, SM wrote:
> behave in a way that you would not usually accept, because of a problem
> or because there is a special reason.
> 
> "Content-free Last Call comments".  Most of the people who posted on the
> thread usually participate in discussions on the ietf@ mailing list.  I
> took a quick look at the mailing list archives for the previous two
> months.  I only saw one message from someone who is from China or Japan.
> 
> better description would be that people from the United States have been
> participating in the IETF since a long time and it is normal for people
> from the United States to control the discussions or rule it by superior
> authority.
> 
> The question I would ask is whether people who have been participating
> in IETF discussions since a long time make allowances for someone who
> has not been participating in such discussions.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
>

---

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:37:31 -0400

I am at a conference in Bangkok and had an interesting conversation last night at the social.  My talk tomorrow includes the MILE work.  When I mentioned this someone commented that he really likes the IETF and has followed mailing lists like PKIX for years, but never participates.  His initial plan was to monitor for a month, then become active.  He kept saying in 2 more months, then just figured everyone else was smarter than him, so monitoring was better.  I filled him in more on the culture and that even very smart people are not always right, even if they assert their answers as if they are.

The next issue he brought up was conflicts on lists.  It is not in his culture to engage in conflict, so he continues to monitor.  Interestingly, he was very positive on the IETF work as a venue to get things done and of the work that happens.  I'm still thinking about this one because he was so positive.

Thank you,
Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:46:30 +0100

This answer is maybe a bit specific, but in a case like that it can
be easier (I imagine) to get involved in newer related work, e.g.
perhaps wpkops. New WGs tend to take volunteers who turn up doing
good stuff more readily since there're new documents and fewer
old arguments.

S.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:45:12 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>regions equally depending on participation.

I read your comment as meaning that there isn't any reason to make 
allowances for someone who is in China.

Let's assume the following case: there is someone who was from China 
and who is now in U.K.  Is there a special reason to make allowances 
for that person?  I read your comment as meaning that there isn't any 
special reason to do that.

By the way nobody suggested having authority to not allow 
participation.  I don't understand the part in the above about "they 
need more opportunity/awareness in Japan and China".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:06:02 +0700

At least for me it has been much more difficult to participate in well
incorporated WGs (sidr, v6ops) than in new ones (weirds). One if the
natural barrier to participate in the IETF, the other is to catch up
with older WG participants.

	Perhaps something that we need to pursuit is to promote new WGs with
the new people arriving to the ietf where it may be easier to participate.

Regards,
as

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:10:02 +0100

> allowances for someone who is in China.

I don't mean we don't allow. There are all reasons to make allowance to
someone and everyone from all countries, not only china.

>
> Let's assume the following case: there is someone who was from China and
> who is now in U.K.  Is there a special reason to make allowances for that
> person?  I read your comment as meaning that there isn't any special reason
> to do that.
>

The allowance is already used in IETF, all are allowed, any where and any
country, why you think/assume someone needs allowance. Did you ask someone
from thoes countries and he/she said they have no allowance?

>
> By the way nobody suggested having authority to not allow participation.
>  I don't understand the part in the above about "they need more
> opportunity/awareness in Japan and China".
>

You did not suggest but assumed no allowance. When you ask for allowance
for someone, that means that that someone feels that he/she has no
allowance, or that you beleive (not only assume) that allowance is not
given already in IETF.

Regarding opportunity needed, I don't think IETF meetings or its
interaction with its community are providing with equal opportunity to all
regions, also I assume that IETF management are not attracting other
regions to participate (because they did not report efforts, which I can
see). I beleive marketing of IETF is with low performance in China and
Japan.

Regards
AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:15:04 +0100

Hi AS,

I think that you are right. Also will add that we need new WG chairs, I
don't know why we don't get Chairs of WGs from all regions. So I suggest
for each WG, we need at least 4 Chairs. I think that if we get WG Chairs
from each region participation will no doubt increase.

AB

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>wrote:

> >> I am at a conference in Bangkok and had an interesting conversation
> last night at the social.  My talk tomorrow includes the MILE work.  When I
> mentioned this someone commented that he really likes the IETF and has
> followed mailing lists like PKIX for years, but never participates.  His
> initial plan was to monitor for a month, then become active.  He kept
> saying in 2 more months, then just figured everyone else was smarter than
> him, so monitoring was better.  I filled him in more on the culture and
> that even very smart people are not always right, even if they assert their
> answers as if they are.
> >>
> >> The next issue he brought up was conflicts on lists.  It is not in his
> culture to engage in conflict, so he continues to monitor.  Interestingly,
> he was very positive on the IETF work as a venue to get things done and of
> the work that happens.  I'm still thinking about this one because he was so
> positive.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Kathleen
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> the
> been

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:23:09 +0100

Why we need new WGs, why not making our OLD WGs newer with new
participants. I experience that old participants don't give chance to new
participants and the WG chair just watches with no interfer, the Chair will
say ok lets see consensus which is wrong. If the new participants realise
that the power is only consensus they will bring with them 100 new
participant to rule the WG, which I don't think is a good solution for the
IETF. We need All WGs to become new and able to work with the world and
following the IETF to welcome/encourage (not only allow) new workers.

AB

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Stephen Farrell
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> > I am at a conference in Bangkok and had an interesting conversation last
> night at the social.  My talk tomorrow includes the MILE work.  When I

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:32:45 +0100

On 06/17/2013 11:23 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I experience that old participants don't give chance to new
> participants 

My experience is that good contributions are welcomed regardless.
And useless ones are properly ignored once its clear that some
participant's contributions are generally useless.

Good contributions earlier in the lifecycle of a WG naturally
tend to be more likely to result in a participant authoring
documents etc.

But the main thing is that people should concentrate on making
good technical contributions.

S.

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:07:58 +0000

Thanks SM for starting this discussion here. SM and I traded a few emails late last week about why I thought the Japanese operators preferred to do work in ITU-T as opposed to IETF (there was a recent liaison from ITU-T regarding IPv6 security; IETF participants have roundly criticized the ITU-T draft as being lacking).

I mentioned that in my experience, organizations that have successfully gotten Japanese participation have tended to encourage (through leadership example and coaching of other "regular" participants) a different style of communication with the Japanese.
 - make absolutely sure that no language is used that could be considered disrespectful towards the individual or the individual's employer (but it's still ok to have strong technical disagreement)
 - use of -san honorific to indicate respect for the individual
 - more formal language and less slang (recognizing language barrier as well as cultural differences)
 - where useful, mentoring to help them feel welcome and not isolated

I also saw discussion on this thread about how difficult it can be for new people to come into existing groups. I don't think the answer to this problem is to start new groups. I think the answer may be some mentoring of new people. Perhaps it would be good if new people were asked if they would like a mentor in the area they're trying to break into. This could especially be offered to people who are from under-represented populations in IETF.

Barbara

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Moriarty, Kathleen
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:38 AM
> To: Arturo Servin
> Cc: SM; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Diversity] Making allowances for someone
> 
> followed mailing lists like PKIX for years, but never participates.  His initial
> plan was to monitor for a month, then become active.  He kept saying in 2
> more months, then just figured everyone else was smarter than him, so
> monitoring was better.  I filled him in more on the culture and that even very
> smart people are not always right, even if they assert their answers as if they
> are.
> 
> The next issue he brought up was conflicts on lists.  It is not in his culture to
> engage in conflict, so he continues to monitor.  Interestingly, he was very
> positive on the IETF work as a venue to get things done and of the work that
> happens.  I'm still thinking about this one because he was so positive.
> 
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> >    I guess is that they have more time in the ietf, I found the
> > discussion interesting but I felt that I didn't have many things to
> > add, so I just silently followed it.
> >
> > regards,
> > as
> >
> >> previous two months.  I only saw one message from someone who is
> from China or Japan.
> >>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:11:31 -0500

For Stephen - it's not your imagination about being harder to contribute 
to established groups.

I was with several new participants at IETF 63 in Paris. One of them was 
interested in a specific working group, but that working group was 
trying to reach the finish line and close down, and they had an approach 
they were comfortable with, that seemed to work. If you convinced them 
that the approach they'd chosen was massively broken, that would have 
been interesting, but the working group was trying to send their 
document to the IESG for approval, and no one wanted to reopen a 
fundamental discussion just because someone had a different idea.

For Arturo - that's the way IETF working groups are supposed to work!

Working groups are chartered with constrained deliverables and milestone 
dates, and they're expected to produce the deliverables and shut down. 
When that doesn't happen, we have many problems (not just new 
participant assimilation). So, I'm thinking that if WGs can complete 
their work without dragging on, the IETF would have more bandwidth to 
start new work, and that would make new participant assimilation more 
straightforward.

To the extent that the IESG can help with that, it seems good that the 
IESG would do so.

Spencer, speaking as an individual

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:18:58 -0500

> I also saw discussion on this thread about how difficult it can be for new people to come into existing groups. I don't think the answer to this problem is to start new groups. I think the answer m…

Barbara and I sent e-mail that crossed in flight, so I should say that I 
don't think starting new groups is THE answer for new participant 
assimilation, either. Even if that turns out to be useful, it's not 
sufficient.

Spencer

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:36:38 +0700

Spencer, Barbara.

	For the record, I didn't mean to create new WGs for new people. What I
meant is that every time that we create a new WG we should promote that
WG with new participants so they can start fresh with that WG.

	For example, to new people I tend to recommend to follow or participate
in WG that are just starting, working on new milestones, chartering or
re-chartering rather than WG that are closing work.

	Is it more clear?

Regards,
as

On 6/17/13 8:18 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> I also saw discussion on this thread about how difficult it can be for
>> new people to come into existing groups. I don't think the answer to
>> this problem is to start new groups. I think the answer may be some
>> mentoring of new people. Perhaps it would be good if new people were
>> asked if they would like a mentor in the area they're trying to break
>> into. This could especially be offered to people who are from
>> under-represented populations in IETF.
>>
>> Barbara
>

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:07:29 +0000

> > I also saw discussion on this thread about how difficult it can be for new
> people to come into existing groups. I don't think the answer to this problem
> is to start new groups. I think the answer may be some mentoring of new
> people. Perhaps it would be good if new people were asked if they would
> like a mentor in the area they're trying to break into. This could especially be
> offered to people who are from under-represented populations in IETF.
> >
> > Barbara
> 
> Barbara and I sent e-mail that crossed in flight, so I should say that I don't
> think starting new groups is THE answer for new participant assimilation,
> either. Even if that turns out to be useful, it's not sufficient.
> 
> Spencer

And I also agreed with what Spencer said. Which leads me to believe even more strongly that mentoring may be a good approach. The Tao of IETF is good but also a bit long and impersonal, and getting soundly rebuffed by a WG trying to get deliverables out the door can be disheartening. But if there were someone to sit down with, one-on-one, who would listen to what the under-represented-population newcomer was interested in, and could discuss the topic with them and guide them in how best to accomplish their goal (or convince them tactfully that it might not be a good idea), they might decide to stick around and persevere. 
Barbara

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:12:34 +0000

> 	For the record, I didn't mean to create new WGs for new people.
> What I meant is that every time that we create a new WG we should
> promote that WG with new participants so they can start fresh with that WG.
> 
> 	For example, to new people I tend to recommend to follow or
> participate in WG that are just starting, working on new milestones,
> chartering or re-chartering rather than WG that are closing work.

Hi Arturo,
I think you bring up an interesting point. I wonder if there are ways to better advertise the start of new efforts to let the outside world know about them when they start. So the newcomers know to come. it might be useful to more broadly liaise to other organizations when we start new efforts, and come up with other ways to reach out at the start (like asking already-engaged people to send email and otherwise communicate with customers/vendors/others who might also have an interest).
Barbara

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:50:11 -0700

> The next issue he brought up was conflicts on lists.  It is not in his culture to engage in conflict, so he continues to monitor.  Interestingly, he was very positive on the IETF work as a venue to…

Interesting example.  It provides two points, one that they still think 
well of the IETF, and the other that they continue not to participate. 
For our purposes here, the latter seems the more significant to me.

While there's always a danger in over-interpreting a single example, it 
could be worth carefully considering and researching what we need to do 
to get such folk to start contributing and feeling comfortable about it.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:44:01 -0700

At 07:07 17-06-2013, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>And I also agreed with what Spencer said. Which leads me to believe 
>even more strongly that mentoring may be a good approach. The Tao of 
>IETF is good but also a bit long and impersonal, and getting soundly 
>rebuffed by a WG trying to get deliverables out the door can be 
>disheartening. But if there were someone to sit down with, 
>one-on-one, who would listen to what the 
>under-represented-population newcomer was interested in, and could 
>discuss the topic with them and guide them in how best to accomplish 
>their goal (or convince them tactfully that it might not be a good 
>idea), they might decide to stick around and persevere.

Thanks to Barbara for sharing her experience of organizations that 
have successfully attracted Japanese participation.  I'll mention a story:

   At my second IETF meeting, I attended a number of sessions.  At
   one point, I dropped in to observe one of the working groups.
   Someone (I don't recall whom, but I assumed at the time that it
   was the chair) ejected me from the room with the assertion "this
   working group is a closed group," and I forever since have had the
   irrational feeling that I am not welcome in that particular domain.
   The person, by the way, seemed as uncomfortable ejecting me as I
   felt being ejected.  Had I been able to talk with the person earlier,
   learn the ground rules, and find out what was probably the truth,
   that only one session of that working group was going to be closed
   during the whole week, the incident could have been avoided.

I changed a few words in the story.  I should have asked the person 
who told the story whether I can post it.  There is a reason why I 
consider the story as an interesting one.

Kathleen mentioned the conflicts on the list as an issue.  In my 
opinion people would be reluctant to participate if they are not used 
to participating in controversial discussions.  As mentioned above 
(see quoted text) it is discouraging to have a group of people 
opposing your idea by mocking you.

There was a message posted by someone from Japan:

   I cannot belive that I'm seeing this thread on an IETF list.
   I run a NOG, and we've been through this many times and we're alread
   over it. Don't call them 'newbies'. Don't think that having the
   chairs or whatevers talk to new comers on sunday mornings will make them
   happy and increase their involvement.

   It's all about PEER involvement.

   The attitude that the COMMUNITY has. Do you talk to your friends about IETF?
   Are you proud of it? Will you encourage your friends to come? Does it make
   sense to you? Is the community working towards a common goal?
   Most importantly, are we listening? or are we justing pretending to.

   Quoting Metallica "and nothing else matters"

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:21:21 +0300

>   Most importantly, are we listening? or are we justing pretending to.

The last few ones are really sharp, and yet deserve our attention.

 >>  Quoting Metallica "and nothing else matters"

+1

Aaron

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:33:48 +0300

Hi,

On 17/06/13 18:50, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> last night at the social.  My talk tomorrow includes the MILE work.  
>> When I mentioned this someone commented that he really likes the IETF 
>> and has followed mailing lists like PKIX for years, but never 
>> participates.  His initial plan was to monitor for a month, then 
>> become active.  He kept saying in 2 more months, then just figured 
>> everyone else was smarter than him, so monitoring was better.  I 
>> filled him in more on the culture and that even very smart people are 
>> not always right, even if they assert their answers as if they are.
>>
>> The next issue he brought up was conflicts on lists.  It is not in 
>> his culture to engage in conflict, so he continues to monitor.  
>> Interestingly, he was very positive on the IETF work as a venue to 
>> get things done and of the work that happens.  I'm still thinking 
>> about this one because he was so positive.
>
>
> Interesting example.  It provides two points, one that they still 
> think well of the IETF, and the other that they continue not to 
> participate. For our purposes here, the latter seems the more 
> significant to me.
>

For the first one, IETF is doing well IMO in many aspects. At least not 
as bad as we thought. If new comers obtain their first impression from 
our discussions in this diversity-list, guess what do they think of us? 
an organization in true mess with endless argument, or a place where 
people do care about its future and trying the best to mend.  Would have 
been an interesting case study though.

For the more sensible second part, participating IETF do require 
ice-breaking, mentally and particularly for people not fully aware the 
IETF/western culture. Possible solutions can be in the form of mentoring 
or word of mouth marketing. For example, the one Kathleen met in Bangkok 
may become more active and gradually participate in IETF after such 
ice-melting conversation, and good words may spread further from him 
onwards. Normally, based on my own Asian reflection, people could 
possibly think of IETF as a far distant land full of super smart 
engineers & disruptive argument that can easily 'burn' anyone who is not 
fluent in English nor equipped with proper western armor.

As Kathleen brought up the conflict avoidance culture, to know how to 
express opinions in a straight-forward open manner, without worrying too 
much about what if my comments hurt others' feeling or will my words 
lead to further conflict, is not an easy mission and maybe beyond what 
we can do in short period of time.

my two cents,

Aaron

> While there's always a danger in over-interpreting a single example, 
> it could be worth carefully considering and researching what we need 
> to do to get such folk to start contributing and feeling comfortable 
> about it.
>
> d/
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:11:04 +0200

Ok, to make use of experiences, we should know your period experience,
type of participating and your region of participation. My experience
is two years listening start from 2009 and then two years posting on
lists and never participated in meetings. Usually IETF still prefare
to meet participants, but still they do it mostly in one region.

comments below

> participant's contributions are generally useless.

nothing is useless in equal discussions, it may be only in few
people's opinion. The majority of the community are users not
designers. So users are never useless even if they have wrong
contributions. I think your opinion will not make IETF progress toward
its visions. If your opinion is the IETF's opinion then I would go to
others, but I think IETF wants all comments even if useless to few
people.

> tend to be more likely to result in a participant authoring

Authoring documents that never get to be adopted by WGs, can make
people discouraged, and will make IETF USELESS. Two regions are still
mostly not adopting other regions few participants interests.

> good technical contributions.

I agree, but people also concentrate to use their volunteering time,
if IETF makes someone's time participating USELESS then he/she will
not feel their contributions are useless but they will feel their
times of participation were USELESS and that TIME is important for
IETF progress, but few designers in one region are not using new
participation positively.

People, authors or designers (1,600 individuals) SHOULD allow users
contributions (no ignore, but respond), to open communication between
them and community. Now I see most people in the community ignoring
also thoes few designers of IETF but I never thought that IETF few
participants were useless because of that situation (I may change my
opinion in future).

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:26:52 +0200

Hi SM

>    The attitude that the COMMUNITY has. Do you talk to your friends about

No, I think still IETF is not mature.

>    Are you proud of it?

no, but like to make it progress so I can be proud for it.

> Will you encourage your friends to come?

No, I still think it may wast my time or friends to attend, but
posting to test the progress is a sign for future plans (maybe after
one year).
> Does it
> make

No, many are ignoring important issues in the community.

>    Most importantly, are we listening? or are we justing pretending to.

We are listening that is why IETF is one the track to better future.
The problem is that majority of participants in IETF still think that
contributions/inputs can be called noise, just because they receive
many messages from few/someone they like to ignore.

I hope some one answers one question of mine, that will help progress
in participations:

IF THE IETF CANNOT MAKE MEETINGS EQUALLY IN ALL WORLD REGIONS, THEN
WHY IS IETF NOT HAVING FOR EACH WG THREE DIFFERENT REGION CO-CHAIRS?

THREE= ASIA REGION, EUROPE&AFRICA REGION, AMERICA REGION

AB

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:39:01 +0300

On 18/06/2013 12:11, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> people's opinion.

Good point.

> The majority of the community are users not
> contributions.

Following the equal discussion path, I need to point out one thing, that 
comments are comments, and some of them may be less thoughtful when 
being spread to the list. Of course everyone has their own opinion 
towards what's useful and what's not, sorry, I can't change their mind 
and so can't you.

IMO, Comments != Contributions

although there is lose connection between them.

> mostly not adopting other regions few participants interests.

Such statement requires more thoughts before speaking out empirically. 
With research background, I kindly suggest to add at least  one 
reference to such judgement, rather than merely blank complaint.

> participants were useless because of that situation (I may change my

Time is precious for everyone, you are right, and any contributions 
shall be appreciated, no matter from where or who.

-- Aaron

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:59:29 +0100

> shall be appreciated, no matter from where or who.

The above is not quite right IMO. You need to factor in that there
are many readers for each posting (~2000 on [email-masked] and
maybe a few hundred on a wg list), so people sending mail also
need to consider that the reader's time is as precious as the
sender's.

> participant's contributions are generally useless.

For some people it does become clear to the community that
their contributions are generally useless, normally after many
many mail messages. From what I've seen that's not an easy state
to get into, but does seem to be possible for a small number of
people.

In lots more cases, initial postings might not be very useful
to a wg, but most people learn quickly, and its not hard to do,
if you use a little common sense and have good technical
knowledge.

I think I've seen lots of times over the years where someone
starts off with a message saying "what's that mean?" or "does
that RFC/draft mean this?" and then go on to quickly make very
useful contributions.

S.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:07:56 +0200

Hi Aaron,

> IMO, Comments != Contributions

IETF defines inputs as contributions, so then
Comments == Contributions

but I know what you mean that comments if not useful they are not a
contribution to someone's new-thoughts or new-document. However, thoes
COMMENTs can be a contribution to someone else :-)

> although there is lose connection between them.

not sure what you mean !

> reference to such judgement, rather than merely blank complaint.

I don't speak here I just write, they are very different actions in my
world. I did not complain here either, it was giving the opinion and
reality of my feeling.
I had a proposal for my I-D (manet-technology) but many in such WG did
not want to adopt it I wanted to know the technical reason for
objection but they don't have any clear one. I will renew it and work
hard to make it adopted through, I may use my region support for that,
or even complaining may be useful but not sure.

> shall be appreciated, no matter from where or who.

Therefore, you agree that we SHOULD concentrate not only on
contributions (good, or not), but also on bringing more
volunteer-times/participants into IETF.

Thanks, I need your nice feedback to know where I was mistaken,

AB

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:54:31 +0300

> shall be appreciated, no matter from where or who.

Hi Stephen,

> need to consider that the reader's time is as precious as the

Good that you point it out. The key part of the message was that 
contributions are different from comments. Before sending 'comments' to 
our lists, readers' time shall be considered and definitely should be 
appreciated.

> that RFC/draft mean this?" and then go on to quickly make very

This is indeed common. My concern is that if we would enforce certain 
rigid rule, that for whatever opinion a person wants to post, they need 
to care about reader's time and feeling, then, people from IETF 
non-dominant regions could easily be led to another path -- being 
passive, rather than being participating. To be honest, I also 
appreciate if the mail senders could seriously consider my time to read 
their *comments*.

At the same time, the level of tolerance varies a lot between people and 
also among different WGs. Again, it is a tricky issue and depending 
heavily on the persons involved (like SM's example about the WG chair). 
It's hard IMO to reach a balance satisfying everyone. From my 
observation so far, IETF is open enough and exhibit necessary tolerance 
to certain degree.

Aaron

---

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:12:15 +0300

Hi AB,

>> although there is lose connection between them.

I mean certain comments become contributions eventually, and some do not.

> volunteer-times/participants into IETF.

Here I bravely quote what's been said by Dave Crocker, which IMO is a 
balanced one.

    "We need IETF management to make choices that maximize the IETF's 
ability
     and reality of including and encouraging all interested 
participants, and
     maximize their contributions to IETF work."

> Thanks, I need your nice feedback to know where I was mistaken,

The call for community input is attached below if you are interested.

Thanks,
Aaron

------------------

Hi all,

The diversity design team is working on mechanisms to increase

the range of perspectives within the IETF, while maintaining high

standards of quality.

Our goal is to help improve the composition and dynamic of the

IETF, by finding ways to incorporate a wide range of perspectives

within the IETF, and specifically in the IETF management teams.

One way of achieving this is to ensure that participants differ

along many different personal, social, and professional

attributes. The expectation is that the greater range of

perspectives leads to considering issues more deeply and with

more sensitivity.

Community feedback is the most important input that helps us

determine the aspects are currently working well in the IETF in

this regard and those that are not. We cannot properly execute

the task of proposing new mechanisms or modifying existing

mechanisms to further these goals without **your** participation

and feedback.

We would like to help the IETF management make choices that

maximize the IETF's ability to include and encourage all

interested participants, and maximize their contributions to IETF

work.

On that basis, we are seeking input from people based on their

personal experiences about

* actions and activities that have worked well to improve the

   inclusiveness of the IETF process

* actions and activitiets that have not worked well to improve

   the inclusiveness of the IETF process

* actions and activities that have worked *against* inclusiveness

   of the IETF process

If you have experience with other technology based organisations

that have broad consultation practices, we would also like to

hear about examples of actions taken that work well to include

participation from diverse communities

Please provide us your input by sending an email to the diversity

design team at [email-masked] . You can provide

**anonymous** feedback by contacting either of the design team

leads Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> and Kathleen

Moriarty <[email-masked]> who will anonymize it for

the rest of the members.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:38:50 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>THREE= ASIA REGION, EUROPE&AFRICA REGION, AMERICA REGION

The diversity design team is working on mechanisms to increase the 
range of perspectives within the IETF, while maintaining high 
standards of quality (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg80076.html ).  I 
suggest providing input about that.

I unfortunately do not have an answer for the question that was 
asked.  It would be helpful in my opinion to suggest actions which 
will deliver results.  A person may, for example, suggest that each 
working group could have three different region co-chairs.  It would 
help if an explanation was included with the suggestion or else it 
will be difficult to assess whether the action will work well or not.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:07:27 -0700

>> THREE= ASIA REGION, EUROPE&AFRICA REGION, AMERICA REGION
...
> I unfortunately do not have an answer for the question that was asked.

Though it's strictly a personal opinion, I'll offer a possible answer:

      The question implies a simplicity to resolution of diversity 
concerns that does not match reality. It asserts a quota model, and 
these are known to be highly problematic.

First, 3 co-chairs is too many, almost always.

Second, if we mandate variety according to region, then why not also 
mandate variety according to gender, training (eg, hardware vs. 
software), specialization layer (eg, apps vs routing), and so on?

Each of these produce very different perspectives.  Any one of them 
might produce a perspective that is important to the work.

We need diversity, but that does not mean mandating specific allocations 
in management teams.

d/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:32:45 +0200

Hi SM,

I think that IETF WG Chairs are the source of making allowance for
someone or for participations, they have tools in procedure to exclude
someone from participation for sometimes related to some conditions.

> suggest providing input about that.

I seen that post questions, which still need time to collect my reply.
Who are the diversity design team and how they were chosen? Could
others join or this team is another close team from the community?

> will be difficult to assess whether the action will work well or not.

OK, usually we now have two Chairs (what chairs role in WG, and what
they can do?), but they are mostly from same region, they are not
familiar with different markets/needs in different regions. How do
they adopt/encourage new work in IETF from the Internet community?

I thought in a different way of assess-procedure, I see it difficult
to know why our procedure has two chairs for each WG chosen by ADs.
Why not the community involved with the ADs, so why was it done this
way in IETF procedure excluding WG participants?

I maybe missing something or misunderstood,

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:35:31 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>others join or this team is another close team from the community?

The answer about who are the diversity design team is in the message 
I mentioned.  I'll copy the answer in here:

   Suresh Krishnan
   Kathleen Moriarty
   Narelle Clark
   Dave Crocker
   Aaron Yi Ding
   Lars Eggert
   SM
   Monique Morrow
   Hugo Salgado
   Arturo Servin
   Margaret Wasserman
   Scott Weeks

I don't know how the diversity design team was chosen.  I don't know 
why I was chosen.  From what I understand it is a closed team.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:23:00 -0400

Hi AB,

> others join or this team is another close team from the community?

SM already posted the list of members of the diversity design team. The
team was chosen by Kathleen and me from the list of people who
volunteered to help out.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:46:44 +0100

> why I was chosen. 

Presumably for diversity :-)'

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:10:26 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>they adopt/encourage new work in IETF from the Internet community?

The WG Chairs work under the direction of an Area Director.  I would 
described the work as  ensuring that the discussions falls within the 
scope of the WG Chair.  What the WG Chairs can do is specified in the 
BCPs.  The WG Chairs usually ask the working group whether it would 
like to adopt a draft if that work is within the scope of the charter.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:29:36 +0200

Hi SM,

Thanks for your help. So if the close-team work are closed could we
know where the plan/design got to, or what is the process end date, or
what will be expected in coming three months, or what are the
milestones if available? I think this will help in my suggestions for
the team.

On 6/18/13, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I mentioned.

Yes was mentioned/read but not understood how, but its ok I am use to not know.

However I will answer the questionnairs,

> I'll copy the answer in here:
>
>    Suresh Krishnan
>    Kathleen Moriarty
>    Narelle Clark
>    Dave Crocker
>    Aaron Yi Ding
>    Lars Eggert
>    SM
>    Monique Morrow
>    Hugo Salgado
>    Arturo Servin
>    Margaret Wasserman
>    Scott Weeks
>

Thanks, I wish you all the best,

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:38:10 +0200

Hi SM,

thanks, comments below,

> like to adopt a draft if that work is within the scope of the charter.

Yes my questions was to open an eye on diversity of the IETF
procedure/BCP. Sometimes I understood that the Chair is able to adopt
documents for the WG, without asking others, and he/she may refuse
adopting as a participant. IMHO, the way of adopting documents SHOULD
be diversified.

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:16:27 +0100

> adopting as a participant. IMHO, the way of adopting documents SHOULD

See http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-id-adoption/ which is intended
to describe the way things are not the way we might like them to be.

But I don't understand "the way of adopting documents SHOULD be diversified."
Do you mean that we should allow the adoption of work that is not in scope of
the WG charter?
Do you mean we should allow the adoption of work when there is not a clearly
identified group of people willing to do the work and interested in seeing
implementation/deployment?
Do you mean that we should adopt drafts when the consensus of the working group
is that the idea is broken, unnecessary, or dangerous?

I am struggling to see where "diversity" comes into the equation unless you are
suggesting that adoption of drafts is currently being blocked (consciously or
subconsciously) because of certain characteristics of the authors rather than
because of the content of the drafts. If this was the case, do you think that
the right answer is allow I-ds through diversity, or should we have blind
reviews? (I am not saying that blind reviews are necessarily practical, but they
would surely remove the risk of any prejudice based on non-relevant author
attributes.)

Adrian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:26:41 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>milestones if available? I think this will help in my suggestions for

There was the message about a call for input.  There isn't any plan 
or design.  There isn't a process end date.  There aren't any milestones.

It's difficult to know what to expect within the next three 
months.  If the people interested in diversity suggest concrete 
actions it will be easier to discuss the matter on the diversity 
mailing list.  If the people interested in diversity do not suggest 
concrete actions I would not expect much.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:02:05 +0200

Hi SM

I suggest someone SHOULD report each month what is the summaries of
discussions on the list.

comments below

> or design.  There isn't a process end date.  There aren't any milestones.

Ok the message is good start, but why does not the team discuss
issues. What is the team doing, or why they are teaming if no plan? Ok
if no design, why it was named design team? ok if no milestone, do you
think this team will get successful results? I think my suggestion is
to make a plan and milestone otherwise the community will feel there
is no seriuos team.

> months.

I know that for teams that wait, they will not know what is coming,

>  If the people interested in diversity suggest concrete
> mailing list.

Yes, discussing is good start, I agree. I suggested many solutions on
the ietf list. There was ignorance from IETF (I did not receive much).

>  If the people interested in diversity do not suggest

IMHO, people already suggested, but did IETF listen or did the team
summaries them. I think you may not expect much because the team are
not doing much or they are not discussing much. Why some people did
not choose me in the team or a team of people discussing the issue?
Then I think you will expect more,

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:40:32 -0700

>I suggest someone SHOULD report each month what is the summaries of

I'll forward the suggestion.

>to make a plan and milestone otherwise the community will feel there

I suggested not using the name "design team" as it might sound 
confusing.  The team is the group of people who volunteered.

It is too early to know whether there will be successful results.

>Then I think you will expect more,

I don't know why you were not chosen.

The email address to send suggestions is [email-masked].  You 
can also provide anonymous feedback.  There is also the 
[email-masked] mailing list which is open to anyone.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:19:45 +0200

Hi SM

thanks for your answers,

> confusing.  The team is the group of people who volunteered.

Ok volunteer to do what? do they lead discussions and survey issues,
or just report to management of community input? If they have no plan
of volunteer, not sure how they function.

> It is too early to know whether there will be successful results.

I think it is time to know/evaluate what can/connot the team do?

> [email-masked] mailing list which is open to anyone.

I usually like to participate/volunteer when I know where things are
going and the direction of such work flow.

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:22:49 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>of volunteer, not sure how they function.

Reports about IETF activities are usually sent to the IETF community 
for feedback.

I volunteered to help out as there might be some presumption that I 
might be able to understand some of the issues mentioned during 
discussions about diversity.  If I did not volunteer people might 
conclude that I only make fancy speeches at the microphone or spam 
ietf@.  If the diversity team had a plan I would not have volunteered 
to help out as the people already know what they do not want to do.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:17:05 -0400

Hi SM,  That may come out the wrong way. Do I need to volunteer to not 
be considered a IETF spammer (bullshit artist with comments and input, 
but does not volunteer to do the IETF work)?

I don't think so for the many obvious reasons and I think most folks are 
in the same common position - provide input only. As being a possible 
candidate, I was part of the 1960-80s USA Affirmative Action programs 
and was even part of Mobil Oil R&D, Westinghouse (Major corporations) 
minority outreach programs to recruit and show as an successful example 
what an engineering life can brings to them. I myself a Chemical 
Engineer, after wide corporate training, I left and became successful in 
the blossoming telecommunications business, very much experienced in 
project and product management, software production, marketing and legal 
aspects and I believe I could contribute some insights into the issue to 
help improve the IETF.  But I do have a motive - I don't wish to be a 
watchdog any more with many of the changing protocols. We need better 
diverse engineering and oversights. We need to be careful of the "paper 
pushers" taking control of the engineering process. We are dangerously 
touching based with diverse conflict of interest issues.

Anyway, as much as I may want to help, I don't really wish to volunteer 
because I can not commit the time to it. If I was asked, I would 
consider it but only really in some small contribution standpoint, when 
possible like, well, now.

I suppose the "Design Team" is going to collect all the thoughts, bits 
and bytes and produce possible a Diversity Problem Statement and 
Recommendations in how the IETF can be improved by addressing certain 
key problem areas.

--
HLS

On 6/20/2013 8:22 AM, SM wrote:
> Reports about IETF activities are usually sent to the IETF community for
> feedback.
>
> ietf@.  If the diversity team had a plan I would not have volunteered to
> help out as the people already know what they do not want to do.
>
> Regards,
> -sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:01:30 -0700

Hi Hector,
At 11:17 21-06-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
>Hi SM,  That may come out the wrong way. Do I need to volunteer to 
>not be considered a IETF spammer (bullshit artist with comments and 
>input, but does not volunteer to do the IETF work)?

What I meant was that I spam ietf@.  I did not imply that anyone else 
does that.

Stephen Farrell commented about contributions at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00080.html 
The short answer is that you do not need to volunteer.  Please note 
that this is my personal opinion only.

>Anyway, as much as I may want to help, I don't really wish to 
>volunteer because I can not commit the time to it. If I was asked, I 
>would consider it but only really in some small contribution 
>standpoint, when possible like, well, now.

I am okay when a person tells me that he or she cannot commit the 
time.  I personally do not have any problem with what is written above.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 06:52:26 +0200

> Recommendations in how the IETF can be improved by addressing certain

I support your idea, I also would request that the team plan should be
produce a possible diversity problem statement and recommendations.

AB