Subject: [Diversity] Do we need flexible parser or sensitive writers

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:34:15 +0100

Regarding my discussion input in IETF routing area. I don't know what
is difficult for your parse in my message. If you don't explained it I will
never know if the problem is in my end or your end. Please note that I do
many informal writing and many english native speakers understand my
writing and can parse it.

I think the discussion-problem in IETF is that some participants use their
native language to discourage others, so when some participants find a
non-English speaker making a point/change/contribution and they disagree
with that input they just make a discourage input out of subject by using
the language issue to discourage the point/participant and change the
discussion to English language instead of IETF issues. So I will bring this
issue here to this list if you like to discuss language and non-native
speakers.

I have discussed for long hours with an IETF mentor, I was informed my
writing is ok, and that there are sensitive English readers. I attended one
IETF meeting, and it seems like most participants have flexible parsers and
few are not. My conclusion of parsers of English is that some people have
to know that the majority of English speakers in the world are not native
speakers any more (especially for informal talks/writes). So IMHO the
majority can parse my message and only few cannot, because those few still
did not adapt to the change in writings in the world's lists of
discussions. IETF should adapt and be flexible with language issues.

Hopefully, We all are trying our best to be flexible and adapt to others in
IETF to make it more diverse even in its parsing.

AB

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014, wrote:

>  your long is also difficult to parse.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* routing-discussion <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> on
> behalf of Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:32:00 PM
> *To:* Joel M. Halpern
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>;
> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>
> *Subject:* Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area
> organization
>
>  Hi Joel,
> (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short
> is difficult to parse)
>
>  I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I
> wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused. However, I
> don't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, but also confused by this
> WG's purpose and its general functions. The WG functions should be very
> clearly related to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community
> interested otherwise this WG will become weak even if some
> participants/ADs want it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are
> all engineering WGs.
>
>  One question point is: Are all the functions in the
> Dispatcher WG administrative or planning or engineering? If it is not
> engineering then it should not belong to Routing Area as WG-function, but
> it can be routing-area-list otherwise General Area WG. If we like dispatch
> for new ideas related to area or any of its WGs then one focused area-list
> is enough. I prefer we use this routing-discussion list to discuss new
> ideas and new functions and new future WG issues (I thought this list was
> for the plannings and new ideas, seems others are working without me
> aware).
>
>  For example, if dispatcher WG function can open/recommend new small
> WGs within the area, then it may be able to re-organise the area without
> this routing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest the charter of
> this WG should be very specific with clear engineering functions that
> do not conflict with known discussion-channels, and they can do
> only specific new-idea discussions within WG channels. Furthermore, other
> idea discussion and new WG are for routing-discussion list and Area
> meetings.
>
>  Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the
> planning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this
> routing-discussion list.
>
>  AB
>
> On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
>> Following the lead of RAI< we could call it Routing Dispatcher instead of
>> RTGWG, if that would help folks understand it better.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
>>
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the
>>> rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the
>>> "Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more like
>>> throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of
>>> them stick together. ;-)
>>> I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we
>>> could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not
>>> necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working
>>> Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-name
>>> acronym, I guess. ;-)
>>>
>>> One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wondering
>>> if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for
>>> "...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas…". Isn't the
>>> introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working
>>> groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed
>>> that we all need to be aware of?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Stan
>>
>>

---

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:58:25 +0000

This is just an observation with no disrespect intended to anyone.  I
find reading technical material more difficult than, say, recreational
reading, such as novels.  Having to parse (in the sense AB is using
this word) technical material adds to the difficulty.  I imagine that
would be difficult in any language.  (On occasion, I have read some
technical material in languages other than English, and have
appreciated when "textbook", non-colloquial language was used.)

I have seen some discussion on this general issue, particularly with
regards to the extra burden it places on the RFC Editor for advancing
drafts, RFCs, etc.  I have wondered if there is a way to incentivize
the volunteer effort of reviewing, to relieve the burden on the RFC
Editor.  For example, people can earn points on Chegg for providing
assistance that are redeemable for gift cards.  However, perhaps this
would disrupt the community volunteer spirit.

--gregbo

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:34:15PM +0100, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > [...]