Subject: Re: [Diversity] Attracting people from under-represented regions into the IETF

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:33:53 +0100

IMHO, the fellowship team need to present their efforts more to us, I would
like to see a discussion from them on ISOC lists or on this with the
community. Why did n't the program team communicate with the
applicants/community together to know exactly how to select for better
results in the past?

Just for a real case record, there was no chance for me this year also to
get the followship, I got a message saying:
{...
In reviewing the applications, the Selection Committee took into
considerati on the qualification criteria, the overall goals of the
program, and a desire to provide opportunities to individuals from a broad
geographic spectrum. As I'm sure you will appreciate, the decision was very
difficult, and we regret to inform you that the Selection Committee chose
other candidates to receive the Fellowship at this time. This does not
reflect on your candidacy but rather on the size and strength of the pool
of applications, and we regret that we are not able to accept more
candidates for this round.
...}

If you regret then on this list we may find a solution for the problem. The
size of the applicants is getting larger (shows some interest but not real
attraction to participate), so what is your current solution ISOC? What
about the team size is it large as well or the size of accepted-fellowship
is not matching? Could you inform us what is your parameters of selection
within a draft, so the community can understand? What is the participation
volume of the ones accepted so far for the last 5 years, so to report your
efficiency in selecting the right interested-people?

 That message did not attract me as a remote participant that applied. It
was the last effort to try, don't know what are the statistics
of remote-participants applying many times. I was only able to attend one
day meeting of 89 meeting. However, the draft under discussion may add
statistics of community inputs/applications and attractions, to show real
reflections of such program.

Best Wishes,
AB

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Adiel,
>
> I support your input as well. The fellowship program need to know what
> IETF thinks about them. The change of the title of the draft is not a
> good idea, and the solution of the attraction of regions is not only
> fellowship. The draft has good points or intentions but not having
> real case studies, I think your real example will help to be added to
> the weak fellowship impact of attracting new comers from unaware
> regions.
>
> AB
>
> On 10/11/13, Adiel Akplogan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > As I already mentioned in one of my previous mail, I think it will be
> good
> > (and better) to widen the scope of this kind of draft to address general
> > issue and set general guideline (not focus just one initiative which is
> ISOC
> > fellowship). At AFRINIC we also have some regional initiatives to support
> > participation to IETF we have created back in 2006 an IETF fellowship
> > through which we have sent 2 people selected from the community to the
> IETF,
> > but unfortunately it has not produced the result we expected. We focus
> our
> > effort right now on raising awareness within students and universities
> and
> > our own staff. That being said we are very keen to do more and revive an
> > improved felowship program. A draft like this can be of interest to our
> > fellowship program team.
> >
> > - a.
> >
>