Subject: [Diversity] SM's story [Was: Making allowances for someone]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:10:40 +0100

>    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 think this is an important story. I am convinced that this was not a working
group meeting. Such behaviour would not be acceptable from a working group chair
and would, I believe, not be tolerated by others in the meeting. I would be
shocked to find that a WG chair had acted like this.

However, there are plenty of meetings held in rooms around the IETF that *are*
closed meetings. For example, the IESG meets, groups of like-minded friends
meet, design teams meet, companies even meet their customers. It would be
reasonable to eject someone from one of those meetings.

Often the embarrassment of ejecting someone from what was planned as a closed
meeting can overwhelm the need to be polite and explain what is going on. It may
also be the case that not enough consideration is given to how the incomer might
not understand what is being said to them (so that it sounds like "this working
group is a closed group").

For a story of my own, the IESG recently found an unknown person happily sitting
at the table for one of their meetings. They were (I think) politely asked to
leave, but I doubt that it was made clear who the IESG was and why the meeting
was closed. I pretty sure that no-one took the time to find out who the person
was, why they were there, and what their interest in the IETF was.

I am not sure this is something we can "legislate" for. It sounds much more
about being generally aware of other people. 

Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:16:29 +0200

> shocked to find that a WG chair had acted like this.

I think that WG Chairs are not monitored, and IETF only notices wrong
doing when someone complains (no one including me like to complain,
but seems like the only choice to progress).

I beleive that the SM story could have happend and no one can be sure
that it never happend or can happen again (because no one complained
about it just now reported).

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:22:56 +0100

> but seems like the only choice to progress).

Don' t be misled by the calmness of the swan above the water! Under the surface
the legs and paddling frantically.

WG are monitored by their ADs and by the community. It is not necessary to
"complain" to make sure an AD is aware of what the chairs have done. But you'll
find that the responsible AD is usually watching (if sometimes with a short
time-delay).

But, if you don't like what a chair has done and it is a cause for concern to
you then you do have to complain. Is this a cultural issue we need to be aware
of? Should we make it easier for people to find a way to register their
concerns?

At the same time, is there a cultural issue about the resolution of complaints?
What if someone complains and is told "I hear you, but I don't agree with or
uphold your complaint?" How is such a resolution perceived and at what point
should the complaint be dropped or escalated?

> about it just now reported).

Who said it never happened?
If it was in a WG (and not something that was mistaken for a WG), who else was
in the room?

But, by the way, we have a responsibility to pass on these stories with the
data. Not attacking SM, but what use to me is his story? If it really did happen
exactly as told, I would like to make sure that the chairs involved do not
behave like this in future. How can I do that without even knowing which IETF
meeting, which WG, etc.? All I can do is preach homilies to the collected WG
chairs. If (as I suggested) the issue was confusion about the type of meeting,
how can I ensure the person concerned is mollified and understands what
happened? All I can do is make sure the Tao mentions the many different types of
meeting that exist at the IETF.

Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:21:15 +0200

Hi Adrian,

My thoughts/questions below, but thanks for your input.

> find that the responsible AD is usually watching (if sometimes with a short

Usually any person doing a chair role in an organisation should be
monitored by third party also, not only by who chosen that person in
the chair position. Usually newcomers don't get to choose the chairs,
so they will not complain but mostly leave.

> of? Should we make it easier for people to find a way to register their

Yes we SHOULD make it easier for people to make their concerns (not to
be ignored or not used negatively by others). I have gave concerns in
past but experienced it used by others against me, so why not having a
system in IETF to report concerns without knowing reporters but just
the incidents and mistaken-managers title. Each reported concerns
should be replied to in public by management.

> At the same time, is there a cultural issue about the resolution of

It is mostly good people don't like to complain about
something/someone that has no business to them (business = any
involving personal money/benefit).

> should the complaint be dropped or escalated?

A third part, as Complain Committee which mostly is not involving
managers or who the complain is related to. As example if I compalin
about WG chair (SM report story), I will get the AD defending that
Chair most likely, so I would like to complain to a third party. Still
IETF has not allowed such great system of third party on low levels.
It is a waste of time to go through long discussions with ADs on
complains issues I think.
> Who said it never happened?

You beleive that it was not a WG Chiar, so you think it never happend.

> If it was in a WG (and not something that was mistaken for a WG), who else

Why we are investigating if the report is true or not, why don't we
discuss that what system can make no option of chairs ignoring
diversity (or not allowing other region participants).

> behave like this in future.

It is use to you and all of us I think. We realise the status of IETF
in someone's experience, we SHOULD make attention to all individuals
in the community. We SHOULD make sure we get a system that stops any
manager in IETF to perform wrongly.

> How can I do that without even knowing which
> IETF
> meeting, which WG, etc.?

The reason of the report is not to complain about someone/something,
the reason is to inform the IETF that there are mistakes happening,
please IETF be aware of them, and try to make thoes not applicable in
future.

> All I can do is preach homilies to the collected
> WG

Are thoes private meetings under IETF regulations or procedures? I
never heard that we get at meetings private rooms discussing important
issues of IETF. Do thoes private meeting report to community the
out-comes or even the result of IETF business is private? Who are
Allowed and who are not-Allowed (seems like the subject of
Making-Allowance is related in private meetings, do we exclude some
regions?) to attend such meetings, do we have a procedure for that or
it depends on someone's opinion?

We also need to learn/ensure from the SM reported Story that ALL IETF
managers understand that they SHOULD not let any mistake happen again.
Also, we SHOULD make new systems/procedures to avoid some
misunderstandning (either from managers or participants) and not-allow
wrong behavior.

AB

---

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:32:50 -0400

The reasons listed in the beginning of the message sound very much like the justification for an ombudsman role in a company.  It is important to have someone who knows how to take in feedback and potentially resolve conflicts.  I don't know if this is possible, but we can include it as a potential suggestion.

Thank you,
Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2013, at 9:21 PM, "Abdussalam Baryun" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:36:12 -0700

> about being generally aware of other people.

On the other hand...

Most discussion of 'diversity' concerns the statistics of group 
composition.  But there have been some references to different styles of 
behavior that increase or decrease the IETF's tone of inclusiveness. 
For example, the common style of hostile debating is hugely /ex/cluding 
for many cultures.

So for concerns about interaction style, it's reasonable to consider 
changes by all of /us/, to make the IETF work better for "outsiders".

The above is a good, simple example:  We all need to keep in mind that 
the basic model for the IETF is that it is open.  Hence any meeting that 
excludes someone has an obligation to explain itself to folk who are 
being excluded.  Not just that they need to leave, but why this group is 
closed.  And a pro forma apology for the situation always helps.

We can't make a specific rule for every behavior that requires such 
consideration.  What we need to do is find ways to train our community 
to think about interaction style and -- especially -- how to make things 
more comfortable for the person we are talking to.

This would be a culture shift for the entire IETF.  That's a big deal of 
course, but it would represent a considerable milestone of maturation 
for the community.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:14:38 -0700

>shocked to find that a WG chair had acted like this.

The story I posted is not my story.  It is a story that was 
originally posted over 20 years ago.  What I retain from the story is:

   "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."

And that the person persevered.

Nowadays, nobody would prevent any person from attending a working 
group meeting.  That's why I did not pay any attention to that part 
of the story.

Regards,
-sm