Subject: [Diversity] Diversity in IETF's Adopted Jobs/Works (was Re: Making allowances for someone)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:13:24 +0200

On 6/19/13, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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."

The participation in IETF is wanted to be diversified, so then we have
a team design for diversity. Our work and workers both need diversity,
not only workers, this is the equation;

Diversity Performance of IETF = Diversity in participation/(dominated
region participants) + Diversity in IETF adopted works/ (dominated
region documents)

> Do you mean that we should allow the adoption of work that is not in scope
> of
> the WG charter?

No never ment that, I want scope, and diversity SHOULD be in scope of
ALL WG, Do you mean that Diversity in the workers of WG SHOULD NOT be
in scope of WG adoptions or concerns?

> 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?

Never ment that we ignore identifications/engineering-reasons, but we
SHOULD not ignore that most of OUR WGs are not with high diversity in
participations.

> Do you mean that we should adopt drafts when the consensus of the working
> group
> is that the idea is broken, unnecessary, or dangerous?

Never ment that, I like consensus, but we SHOULD consider consensus of
world regions not dominated ones, and don't ignore that there are many
listening but don't participate for some private reason. The way
consensus is practiced in adoptions in IETF may not be following the
IETF vision.

>
> I am struggling to see where "diversity" comes into the equation

Diversity Performance of IETF = Diversity in participation/(dominated
region participants) + Diversity in IETF adopted works/ (dominated
region documents)

If there is good reasons of opposing and agreeing on one I-D to be
adopted then consensus is reasonable (Diversity is not in the equation
of adoption).

If there was no good reason for opposing adoption, then the chair
SHOLD adopt the I-D (Diversity is in the equation or Diversity SHOULD
be considered).

> 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.

Not suggesting, just commenting on the diversity list for more
consideration of *document adoption* into this design team work.

> 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.)

We need diversity in IETF Editors (not authors), we need diversity in
reviewers (reviewers with different ages, woman, men, different region
review, etc.). I don't like blind work, we need to have diversity in
management and in participation and in reviews and in editings and in
WGs, chairs, and in IESG, and in documents.

Authors don't have to be diversified (I never care who are the
authors, but who adopted the work and why) because usually they mostly
come together to do a work and then they ask a WG to adopt it. The
editors of that adopted work SHOULD be diversified for the best
practice. The IETF owns the adopted-document not only the authors.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 02:15:56 +0200

> practice. The IETF owns the adopted-document not only the authors.

IETF Jobs/title/hats: ADs, WG Chair, WG Editor, etc.
IETF documents/drafts: Adopted I-Ds, RFCs, etc.

I suggest make diversity in both Jobs and documents, so we should not
limit the number of jobs or number of participants assigned to same
job title.

AB