Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:57:23 +0200

In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy to
get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you
are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by
industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring?

However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without
a respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need
help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is
organised to support diversity and serious to involve more participants
from all the real world community.

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:02:31 +0100

Abdussalam,
 
Your claims are significant and need to be investigated. But it is hard to work through them without concrete evidence, yet it may also be hard to get such material without someone doing some analysis. We may have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, and in doing so we have to be careful to separate three things:
- Real cases of remote participants being ignored
- Issues with lack of understanding of IETF process
- False perception of being ignored 
 
Fundamentally, if someone feels that they are being ignored the responsibility is shared. The community has a duty to not ignore; the chairs and document editors have a duty to make sure all issues are captured; and individuals (the ignored or the witnesses) have a duty to flag specific incidents.
 
The first case is, of course, the most important. It can arise for many reasons, and we continue to attempt to train the working group chairs to help them address some of these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to apply here, and chair training will take time. Most recently, the chairs had a session in Toronto to discuss ways of handling language and cultural issues, while the Routing ADs have just put in place a program of training sessions for the chairs in the Routing Area. We would, of course, welcome insight about which issues need special attention in training, but a shopping list only has limited value: we may need more structured help developing topics and material for training.
 
The second case is a learning process. We can help by making material available to newcomers, by being available as chairs, AD, and long-time IETFers, and through the newly established mentors program. But lack of understanding of IETF process and the normal mode of operation of the IETF can lead to the third case...
 
It is important to understand how to make effective contributions to the IETF and how some contributions will not get a response because they are essentially empty of constructive input. Thus, if someone makes a comment like "You should write more about foo" then the editor may agree or disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has to expand on the issues that need to be covered and to write the text. It is far more constructive to break down the topic that needs to be addressed, to explain why it needs to be covered, and to actually supply text. "Repeat offenders" who demand that other people do work will find that their comments start to be ignored to the point that even if they go on to make a reasonable and helpful contribution no-one is reading their email any more. That's a bad situation that we all have to work to improve.
 
Let's take your email on this thread as a direct example. You have raised some concerns via an assertion that you have not substantiated with verifiable facts or even anecdote. You have asked two questions that many feel are self-evident and don't need an answer. You end by saying "IETF should..." and you may be right, but you are not contributing to the solution. What are the detailed actions you would like to see? How can those actions be achieved? Who will contribute the work?
 
This is a very important topic, but I fear your email does nothing to further the state of the art. Many of us are working hard (in our spare time, of course) to make it easier to integrate newcomers and remote participants into the IETF. There are many projects running, some of them in their early stages. We could do more, I am sure. Please give us some concrete and constructive help.
 
Adrian

From: diversity [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 27 July 2014 07:57
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors
 
In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring?
 
However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised to support diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the real world community. 
 
AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 02:02:49 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 23:57 26-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very 
>easy to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor 
>specially if you are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. 
>Is the IETF owned by industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors 
>need training/mentoring?

I leave it to other persons to answer the question about whether the 
IETF is owned by industry.  I don't know whether chairs or editors 
need training.

>However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response 
>without a respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or 
>they may need help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue 
>if it is organised to support diversity and serious to involve more 
>participants from all the real world community.

Let's assume that I do not like a person.  I can ignore the question 
which the person asked if I know that the person cannot or will not 
do anything about it.  Please note that I do not think that it is a 
good idea to do that.  It is up to the person to ensure that he or 
she is not ignored.  What would you do if you are ignored?

In case it is not obvious, I'll mention that I do a lot of research 
before asking a question or commenting about an issue (e.g. 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg07832.html ).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:22:26 +0200

Hi Moonesamy,

Comments below,

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

>> In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy
>> to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you
> I leave it to other persons to answer the question about whether the IETF
> is owned by industry.  I don't know whether chairs or editors need training.

They need training by IETF because some WGs are with low quality in terms
of constructive discussions.

>
>  However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a
>> respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need
>> help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised
>> to support diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the
>> real world community.
>>
>
> Let's assume that I do not like a person.  I can ignore the question which
> the person asked if I know that the person cannot or will not do anything
> about it.  Please note that I do not think that it is a good idea to do
> that.  It is up to the person to ensure that he or she is not ignored.

> It is not about me or you, it is about an IETF hat or power. How can an WG
chair/editor use their hat against the IETF best process? It is
responsibility of IETF to stop ignorance of IETF position-holders.

> What would you do if you are ignored?

For me I was ignored many times and want to solve the issue of what to do
diversely so I am now discussing it her with the diverse-community and not
with Those position holders.

> In case it is not obvious, I'll mention that I do a lot of research before
> asking a question or commenting about an issue (e.g.

That is good for IETF but we need WG chair/editors to be like you before
asking the community to adopt or WGLC (searching for all community feedback
and responding).

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:39:04 +0200

Hi Adrian,

I agree that I did not go into details, because it was not a complaint, I
done that way but IESG supported IETF-positions, but if the message is
right the recommendation is good for new comers, and diversity supporters.
IMHO the message starts a discussion topic and does not claim solving any
thing, because we need to discuss/define the problem (some may think it
does not exist, and some think it does).

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Abdussalam,
>
>
>
> Your claims are significant and need to be investigated.
>
> Agree, but I am discussing it with you and with the community so I don't
ignore the observations.

> But it is hard to work through them without concrete evidence, yet it may
> also be hard to get such material without someone doing some analysis. We
> may have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, and in doing so we have to be
> careful to separate three things:
>
> Agree, there may be other additional points.

>
>
> Fundamentally, if someone feels that they are being ignored the
> responsibility is shared. The community has a duty to not ignore; the
> chairs and document editors have a duty to make sure all issues are
> captured; and individuals (the ignored or the witnesses) have a duty to
> flag specific incidents.
>
> That is why the message recommends that a note should be posted to WG list
if the ignorance happens, so if some one feels ignored she/he must post
feedback without double ignore.

> The first case is, of course, the most important. It can arise for many
> reasons, and we continue to attempt to train the working group chairs to
> help them address some of these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to
> apply here, and chair training will take time. Most recently, the chairs
> had a session in Toronto to discuss ways of handling language and cultural
> issues, while the Routing ADs have just put in place a program of training
> sessions for the chairs in the Routing Area. We would, of course, welcome
> insight about which issues need special attention in training, but a
> shopping list only has limited value: we may need more structured help
> developing topics and material for training.
>
> Yes, I see efforts of training and think a procedure update draft for
remote chairing/editing is important for all participants to consider.
However, it should be discussed/solved openly by all diverse community (I
don't see much remote discussions on that by the diverse community).

>
>
> The second case is a learning process. We can help by making material
> available to newcomers, by being available as chairs, AD, and long-time
> IETFers, and through the newly established mentors program. But lack of
> understanding of IETF process and the normal mode of operation of the IETF
> can lead to the third case...
>
> If we agree that ignoring/feeling-ignored is wrong in all
IETF responsibilities, then we can stop it at both sides the chair and
the participant sides by defining its full reasons.

>
>
> It is important to understand how to make effective contributions to the
> IETF and how some contributions will not get a response because they are
> essentially empty of constructive input. Thus, if someone makes a comment
> like "You should write more about foo" then the editor may agree or
> disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has to expand on the issues that
> need to be covered and to write the text. It is far more constructive to
> break down the topic that needs to be addressed, to explain why it needs to
> be covered, and to actually supply text. "Repeat offenders" who demand that
> other people do work will find that their comments start to be ignored to
> the point that even if they go on to make a reasonable and helpful
> contribution no-one is reading their email any more. That's a bad situation
> that we all have to work to improve.
>
> Who decides constructive? It is the community or the WG but not the
WG chair/editor. If I am a chair/editor I have to respond to make the
IETF process work better. A WG list is created to discuss not to examen
constructive inputs, in organisations the staff discuss without ignoring
inputs, so I only put the compulsory respond on chair/editor, if they want
to fulfil their job.

>
>
> Let's take your email on this thread as a direct example. You have raised
> some concerns via an assertion that you have not substantiated with
> verifiable facts or even anecdote. You have asked two questions that many
> feel are self-evident and don't need an answer. You end by saying "IETF
> should..." and you may be right, but you are not contributing to the
> solution. What are the detailed actions you would like to see? How can
> those actions be achieved? Who will contribute the work?
>
> This list participants and Me will discuss the issue that is why it was
posted. It is still under discovery or process for future work. However, it
is an observation and point of view as starting to define a problem for
discussions. Your questions are important, but needs the list
participants/viewers/DT to not ignore answering them.

>
>
> This is a very important topic, but I fear your email does nothing to
> further the state of the art.
>
> IMHO the signal in the right channel is an excellent start, the signal is
just a signal for future communication and solutions.

> Many of us are working hard (in our spare time, of course) to make it
> easier to integrate newcomers and remote participants into the IETF. There
> are many projects running, some of them in their early stages. We could do
> more, I am sure. Please give us some concrete and constructive help.
>
> I want to know those projects, are they posted her in this list, why
ietfers not discussed on this list (do they ignore or hide from community
interfere). This list is not bussy (another observation). Some efforts are
not constructive if the work is private or done in DT without reporting to
the IETF community. I need help and you/draft-editors need help, so let us
discuss/share that remotely on a list but without working
alone/privately for any project related to diversity. Some may say who am I
to be equal to IETF real contributors (ADs, Chairs, WG editors, etc), they
even can say to me that you have no RFC so please make one first before
trying to change the process (I am against that response theory
or ignorance behavior).

Thanks for your advise and help.

AB

>
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* diversity [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Abdussalam
> Baryun
> *Sent:* 27 July 2014 07:57
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors
>
>
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:44:56 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 06:22 27-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>They need training by IETF because some WGs are with low quality in 
>terms of constructive discussions.

The above does not provide any information about the discussions 
which are of low quality.  Let's assume that I take your request to 
the Routing Area Director.  He will expect me to provide some 
information.  This is where I say that Mr Baryun told me that some 
working group chairs and working group editors need training.  I 
don't think that it will be considered as a convincing argument.  The 
Routing Area Director will ignore my request.  If the Routing Area 
Director is nice he will explain to me why he cannot do anything 
about my request.

There is a message from Mr Farrel at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00548.html 
He responded to your comment in less than 24 hours.  His message 
explained what he thought about what you wrote.

>It is not about me or you, it is about an IETF hat or power. How can 
>an WG chair/editor use their hat against the IETF best process? It 
>is responsibility of IETF to stop ignorance of IETF position-holders.

I am replying to this message because a person wrote it.  I would not 
bother about the message if it was signed by the IETF as the IETF is 
not a person.  Responsibility is the state or fact of having a duty 
to deal with something or of having control over someone.  An 
organization would not understand the meaning of the word 
"responsibility".  There is a nomination committee in the IETF which 
elects the "position-holders".  It is up to the persons on that 
committee to determine whether the "position-holders" are qualified or not.

There isn't an IETF best process.  A working group chair or working 
group editor can only violate the process rules if nobody in the 
group raised an objection.  I'll mention that process rules are not 
meant to be followed blindly.  I'll provide an example: if a person 
steals a loaf of bread, would I report that offense if I know that 
the person is hungry?  No.

>For me I was ignored many times and want to solve the issue of what 
>to do diversely so I am now discussing it her with the 
>diverse-community and not with Those position holders.

One definition of the word "community" is "group of people living in 
the same place or having a particular characteristic in common".  The 
only characteristic the readers of this mailing list have in common 
is that they have subscribed to this mailing list.  I don't think 
that the mailing list can be called a community.

There is a response to Mr Farrel's message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00551.html 
I'll select parts of that message:

   "Who decides constructive? It is the community or the WG but not 
the WG chair/editor.
   If I am a chair/editor I have to respond to make the IETF process 
work better."

The quoted text does not explain why you think that the community 
decides about what is constructive.  One definition of the word 
"constructive" is "having or intended to have a useful or beneficial 
purpose".  I have acted as a working group chair.  I considered it as 
my responsibility within that working group to determine what is 
useful or beneficial.

   "This list participants and Me will discuss the issue that is why 
it was posted.
    It is still under discovery or process for future work. However, it is an
    observation and point of view as starting to define a problem for 
discussions."

My understanding of the above is that there hasn't been much research 
into the issue.  The message does not provide any information for me 
to learn about the problem(s).

>That is good for IETF but we need WG chair/editors to be like you 
>before asking the community to adopt or WGLC (searching for all 
>community feedback and responding).

Thanks.

Let me criticize the example I gave previously.  That message did not 
contain any references for a person to determine whether what I wrote 
was true.  If it was an objection there is a chance that the 
objection would be rejected.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:40:48 +0200

Hi Adrian and Moonesamy,

On this list I hope we have some diversity rules/principles, as for me I
try to forget if you are male or female, and really does not matter on the
list and will never help only if the subject is gender to help
related discussion. The reason of my first discussion that in one WG I did
not see consensus clear on list related to one draft which was adopted.

comment and discussing below, (I discuss with you as diversity list
participants, and without considering your background of
relationships/position/power/experience/gender/religion/culture/etc.),

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Yes, I try my best to find real related issues to IETF diversity problem.
I hope IETF help in investigation.

> also be hard to get such material without someone doing some analysis.
>
> Yes, we may need a draft authored by diversified team including all who
were ignored in IETF, to describe reasons/issues and possible
solutions/recommendations.

 We may have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, and in doing so we have to
> be careful to separate three things:
>
>  There are real cases, that is why I discussed this, just I think the
reason is because of lack of diversity consideration within such
responsibilities.  The cases were in WGs in different dates and
drafts: MANET, OSPF, 6Lo, I2RS, I don't go into details because I want to
solve not damage relationships, we can do that privately if IETF wants
more.

>
> Also IETF may lack understanding of customers and new generations of
diverse community. Usually there are always common sense processes for all
organisations, the lack of understanding the community common sense will
make management not achieve diversity in their community.

> It is a common sense issue, ignored is ignored especially when we are in
an organisation not in the free street or free space/list/forum.
IMHO Higher-positions in the organisation should not ignore within any
relationship or discussion events.

> Yes, but first it is IETF responsibility to not allow its positions to
ignore parts or community or parts of discussions/inputs. Let us start from
up to bottom to solve, IMHO it is not correct to solve from bottom
especially when the management as not enough diversified.

> I am doing my part her in the list. IETF discussions and reminders are
training to all community and to who allow change in their
draft/work/life. However, IETF as organisation needs to confirm that it is
not allowing ignorance. I don't find a confirmation in its recommendations
(I may be wrong). So management/editors of IETF are free to do ignorance.

> The second case is on both sides, for management and participants. Both
need training on diversity considerations. Both need help, and IETF needs
to be clear if it allows ignorance or not (may be IETF can name it in a
different word as silence or not-reply action). Furthermore, that learning
needs to be top-to-bottom.

> essentially empty of constructive input.
>
> Any participant is part of IETF work when he posts ideas/advise, so IETF
should understand (its current and future management should understand)
that all diverse inputs should be reflected in the IETF decisions equally
likely. The process becomes constructive when its power-positions (chair,
editor, AD) don't ignore any part of community/WG.

> Thus, if someone makes a comment like "You should write more about foo"
> then the editor may agree or disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has
> to expand on the issues that need to be covered and to write the text. It
> is far more constructive to break down the topic that needs to be
> addressed, to explain why it needs to be covered, and to actually supply
> text. "Repeat offenders" who demand that other people do work will find
> that their comments start to be ignored to the point that even if they go
> on to make a reasonable and helpful contribution no-one is reading their
> email any more. That's a bad situation that we all have to work to improve.
>
> If any disagree they should respond, but editor/chair should not be
in silent position.  The chair is to guide participants especially new
comers and old editors. we should make considerations clear so it becomes
part of our IETF culture. Also ADs/chairs are responsible to guide that
culture within all WG discussions and interactions.

> further the state of the art. Many of us are working hard (in our spare
> time, of course) to make it easier to integrate newcomers and remote
> participants into the IETF. There are many projects running, some of them
> in their early stages. We could do more, I am sure. Please give us some
> concrete and constructive help.
>
> Mostly, We need to integrate old participants and old editors with new
IETF inputs and more diversified community (top-to-bottom solution). I will
do my best to help as you may know that I have done many discussions and
helped in many issues.

> is owned by industry.  I don't know whether chairs or editors need training.

All need training even CEOs as you see many organisations in the last ten
years have closed because of big mistakes. So IMHO not only chairs but also
ADs (it is not wrong/shameful to get extra training/assistance even if you
are already an expert or the president).

> about it.

That person is free only when he owns his duty, but if that person has a
duty owned by another person or any organisation, then that person is not
free to ignore the question. I agree that the organisation draws the rule
of the duty and responsibility, so I think IETF should consider diversity
development into its responsibilities.

>   Please note that I do not think that it is a good idea to do that.  It
> is up to the person to ensure that he or she is not ignored.  What would
> you do if you are ignored?

I think it is up to the organisation that runs/owns the work to help its
staff do the better job with better guide. I think really it is IETF that
is ignoring not the persons, I don't take work position into personal
issues, it is not about like or hate, it is about clear guidance from
organisations or leaders/management.

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg07832.html ).

IETF needs research on ignorance by management toward participants' input
or toward discussions or toward IETF diversity.

Overall, I am not crying wolf, but it is good to discuss this issue to help
management, me and others in the IETF progress, because we all are part of
it and all have truthful observations.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:21:00 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 01:40 31-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>On this list I hope we have some diversity rules/principles, as for 
>me I try to forget if you are male or female, and really does not 
>matter on the list and will never help only if the subject is gender 
>to help related discussion. The reason of my first discussion that 
>in one WG I did not see consensus clear on list related to one draft 
>which was adopted.

Thanks for explaining the above.  RFC 7221 discusses about the 
handling of Internet-Drafts by working groups.

In theory, anyone can raise an objection if, for example, the Working 
Group Chair says that there is consensus when there isn't.  In 
practice, there are only a few persons who will do that.

>relationships/position/power/experience/gender/religion/culture/etc.),

Ok.

>Yes, we may need a draft authored by diversified team including all 
>who were ignored in IETF, to describe reasons/issues and possible 

It is not possible to do that if nobody volunteers to write the draft 
and nobody comes forward and say that they have been ignored.

>drafts: MANET, OSPF, 6Lo, I2RS, I don't go into details because I 
>want to solve not damage relationships, we can do that privately if 
>IETF wants more.

It will unfortunately damage relationships.

>I am doing my part her in the list. IETF discussions and reminders 
>are training to all community and to who allow change in their 
>draft/work/life. However, IETF as organisation needs to confirm that 
>it is not allowing ignorance. I don't find a confirmation in its 
>recommendations (I may be wrong). So management/editors of IETF are 
>free to do ignorance.

The usage of the word "ignorance" in the above is incorrect.  A 
person who does not understand what the author of the message was 
trying to express will consider it as a negative comment.  If this 
discussion was on the [email-masked] mailing list there would be some 
impolite comments.

I'll quote a few comments from the last plenary without mentioning 
the names of the persons:

   "Several of us have the experience of many participants not being 
willing to engage
    because of the heat of some of the participants."

   "I stopped reading the IETF list years ago, because I don't like 
being scolded by
    people who don't have a clue.  Although our official position is 
that work gets
    done on mailing lists, people who don't show up to the meetings 
really have great
    difficulty interacting with others.  And I don't have the time to 
deal with that."

   "It's far more important to retain [removed] on the list than to 
get 35 newbies."

   "You have to search back through the chain of posts to find out 
what the conversation
    is, and to understand whether they are talking about."

   "different participants are looking for different things from the 
mailing list."

   "Being attacked from all sides, not defending yourself would be 
perceived as a
    sign of weakness."

There is a wide range of opinions about what the IETF community would 
like to change.

>The second case is on both sides, for management and participants. 
>Both need training on diversity considerations. Both need help, and 
>IETF needs to be clear if it allows ignorance or not (may be IETF 
>can name it in a different word as silence or not-reply action). 
>Furthermore, that learning needs to be top-to-bottom.

What are the diversity considerations?  Is it about taking into consideration:

    (a) relationships

    (b) position

    (c) experience

    (d) gender

    (e) religion

    (f) culture

>in silent position.  The chair is to guide participants especially 
>new comers and old editors. we should make considerations clear so 
>it becomes part of our IETF culture. Also ADs/chairs are responsible 
>to guide that culture within all WG discussions and interactions.

If I understood correctly, the problem is that an editor or Working 
Group Chair has ignored comments from a participant in which he or 
she disagreed with the editor or the Working Group Chair.  The 
participant did not contact the Working Group Chair or the 
Responsible Area Director to complain that he or she has been 
ignored.  The participant did not post any objection to the mailing 
list.  Another problem is that the participant does not have a good 
understanding of the IETF process, i.e. he or she does not know that 
it is possible to contact the Working Group Chair or Responsible Area 
Director to complain about the problem.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:34:27 -0400

Hello,

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:21 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Abdussalam,
>> On this list I hope we have some diversity rules/principles, as for me I try to forget if you are male or female, and really does not matter on the list and will never help only if the subject is gender to help related discussion. The reason of my first discussion that in one WG I did not see consensus clear on list related to one draft which was adopted.
> 
> Thanks for explaining the above.  RFC 7221 discusses about the handling of Internet-Drafts by working groups.
> 
> In theory, anyone can raise an objection if, for example, the Working Group Chair says that there is consensus when there isn't.  In practice, there are only a few persons who will do that.

I'd also like to understand if there was a poll conducted in a meeting that was then followed by the poll on list that you mention.  If that's the case, consensus may have been clear and then was followed up on list to allow others who did not attend to participate.  This could make the poll in email appear much different than the full poll that could have had many people participating.  They would not have responded on list as they already provided a response (hum, hand in air, etc.).  You should be able to verify this in meeting minutes or through the recording in the worst case scenario.

> 
>> comment and discussing below, (I discuss with you as diversity list participants, and without considering your background of relationships/position/power/experience/gender/religion/culture/etc.),
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> Yes, we may need a draft authored by diversified team including all who were ignored in IETF, to describe reasons/issues and possible solutions/recommendations.
> 
> It is not possible to do that if nobody volunteers to write the draft and nobody comes forward and say that they have been ignored.
> 
>> There are real cases, that is why I discussed this, just I think the reason is because of lack of diversity consideration within such responsibilities.  The cases were in WGs in different dates and drafts: MANET, OSPF, 6Lo, I2RS, I don't go into details because I want to solve not damage relationships, we can do that privately if IETF wants more.
> 
>> I am doing my part her in the list. IETF discussions and reminders are training to all community and to who allow change in their draft/work/life. However, IETF as organisation needs to confirm that it is not allowing ignorance. I don't find a confirmation in its recommendations (I may be wrong). So management/editors of IETF are free to do ignorance.
> 
> The usage of the word "ignorance" in the above is incorrect.  A person who does not understand what the author of the message was trying to express will consider it as a negative comment.  If this discussion was on the [email-masked] mailing list there would be some impolite comments.
> 
> I'll quote a few comments from the last plenary without mentioning the names of the persons:
> 
>  "Several of us have the experience of many participants not being willing to engage
>  "I stopped reading the IETF list years ago, because I don't like being scolded by
>   people who don't have a clue.  Although our official position is that work gets
>   done on mailing lists, people who don't show up to the meetings really have great
>   difficulty interacting with others.  And I don't have the time to deal with that."
> 
>  "It's far more important to retain [removed] on the list than to get 35 newbies."
> 
>  "You have to search back through the chain of posts to find out what the conversation
>  "different participants are looking for different things from the mailing list."
> 
>  "Being attacked from all sides, not defending yourself would be perceived as a
>   sign of weakness."
> 
> There is a wide range of opinions about what the IETF community would like to change.
> 
My take-away from that discussion was that the IETF list could continue as-is with the group of people who like that forum and newcomers would likely prefer alternate solutions, including social interfaces anyway.  If we wanted to make sure you could get all the information in one place, a summary from the social site could be periodically sent to the list.

Just a thought and a possible way forward (I'm sure there are other good options too that will be discussed).

>> The second case is on both sides, for management and participants. Both need training on diversity considerations. Both need help, and IETF needs to be clear if it allows ignorance or not (may be IETF can name it in a different word as silence or not-reply action). Furthermore, that learning needs to be top-to-bottom.
> 

I'd say it's important to all, not just top - bottom as the IETF evolves with annual leadership changes.  

Thanks,
Kathleen 
> 
>> If any disagree they should respond, but editor/chair should not be in silent position.  The chair is to guide participants especially new comers and old editors. we should make considerations clear so it becomes part of our IETF culture. Also ADs/chairs are responsible to guide that culture within all WG discussions and interactions.
> 
> If I understood correctly, the problem is that an editor or Working Group Chair has ignored comments from a participant in which he or she disagreed with the editor or the Working Group Chair.  The participant did not contact the Working Group Chair or the Responsible Area Director to complain that he or she has been ignored.  The participant did not post any objection to the mailing list.  Another problem is that the participant does not have a good understanding of the IETF process, i.e. he or she does not know that it is possible to contact the Working Group Chair or Responsible Area Director to complain about the problem.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy  
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity