Subject: [Diversity] The community or IETF bias (was Re: Loud humming is subject to cultural bias (was: 6tsch BoF))

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:37:54 +0200

>>Favoring loud humming is subject to cultural bias. [1]

>>This cultural bias is not compatible with increased inclusiveness. [1]

> There are very few women attending a WG session.  Any person at the
> current meeting can see for himself or herself whether what I wrote
> is correct or not. [1]

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00177.html

Why is the above true in IETF activities? I think the answer is below;

In reasonable cultures I think I would like to know the reason of hums
against, so the chair should announce why are the against? (in the BoF
of 6tsch I did not hear any reason from people against, so I think
there is nothing valuable). Best reasons should help us make value
into our decisions.

If we know we can adjust and get to better progress-results or better
work-together (the community becoming one team, not a team becoming
the community). IMHO, the *aim of consensus* in any community culture
is not just to make up our decision, but is to make the best-decision
and to make it together without excluding minorities. Groups in the
community try to drive the community or to make the group decision a
community decision, so we need to give more chance to
minorities/diverse to explain their point of view. If the point of
view is more reasonable then I will think it is more important than
majority decision ( i.e. decision with weak reasons or defence).

Is the IETF culture reasonable or is it drived by few men, groups or
regions? I noticed that IETF does practice excluding when one of my
announced-reviews effort on a draft was not acknowledged. Huming,
announcing-reasons and hand voting are just tools for knowledge of
community direction. So I think that IETF gives chance to groups/teams
to drive the community/reason not the other way around. I think women
are more reasonable and more working with community, than men :-)

Giving Chance to Diversity in IETF with acknowledging
input/reason/knowledge is the solution.

AB

On 8/1/13, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 06:30 01-08-2013, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>Please provide some evidence that a loud hum means the person is more
>>committed to work on an item.
>>
>>Favoring loud humming is subject to cultural bias.
>>Some cultures are more inclined to raise their voice than others.
>>Some people have naturally louder voices than others.
>>Measuring volume may introduce bias in favor of loud men and against
>>soft-spoken women, for example.
>>
>>This cultural bias is not compatible with increased inclusiveness.
>
> There are very few women attending a WG session.  Any person at the
> current meeting can see for himself or herself whether what I wrote
> is correct or not.
>
> Comparing hums for a yes or no question is a rough guess.  I don't
> know who in the room usually raises his or her voice.  When the noise
> sounds louder from a part of the room I will have a doubt that my
> rough guess is good enough.  As the action I take in such cases is
> publicly documented I don't have to mention it again.
>
> People from some parts of the world are more inclined to raise their
> hands.  I notice when the people I am acquainted with have raised their
> hands.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>