Subject: [Diversity] IETF General Area related to IETF diversity future

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:36:39 +0200

Hi Adrian

I think there is huge difference in forming WG for General work and
forming WG for specific Internet_engineering work. The biggest problem is
that general area is empty with many old participants having reasons not to
have one. I first need to know why there is no interest and why do we still
have the area open while empty (the area should close as well if no
interest any more).

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  I think this thread has digressed a long way from the purpose of this
> list and may be causing unnecessary distraction.
>
> Who decided the purpose for this list? I think it is about diversity, and
that the general area is mostly rolled by One region's old participants
and by current IETF management.

>
>
> Forming a WG in the General Area is no different from forming a WG in any
> other area.
>
> I think it seems similar because a WG is a WG. It is like the discussion
on gender, so a man is no different than a woman, still we need diversity
because the majority made some perception differences. So WGs are
similar but the difference is the goals which are not similar related to
internet technology and that participants perceive them differently.
General area is related to issues of IETF administration, procedure,  and
powers. Therefore, who calls for such WG will be mostly facing the big
people or one type of community (mostly male, higher positions, etc).

> It does not happen by wishing or stating that one should be formed. It
> happens when a need is demonstrated for a forum to do collective work
> toward a specific deliverable.
>
> IMHO It happens when there are connections with/between management, then
the need demonstrated ...

>
>
> To drive that (if you want to) you need to:
>
> - identify the topic you think needs a working group
>
> - write an internet-Draft describing the problem space
>
> - gather a group of people who agree with you
>
> - request a BoF or the immediate formation of a working group
>
>
>
> Can we please return this list to the intended topic, viz.
>
>  I can do that request only if I get an answer that the community
confirms/confirmed that it does/did want the area empty from any WG. I see
that empty general area means that IETF is not having the future of full
diversity advantages.

AB

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:53:03 -0400

Hi AB,

> and by current IETF management.

The chairs are the moderators and help to keep topics on track so that it
is a good use of the participants time.  When discussions are not on topic,
lots of time is wasted, even if it is just to read the email threads and
not engage.  As one of the moderators, I agree with Adrian's assessment and
will respond below to explain.

> people or one type of community (mostly male, higher positions, etc).

You are both in agreement, there was no need for follow up to Adrian's
point.  Short and to the point messages with enough context are more likely
to be viewed positively by others in diverse communities (or any other) as
the readers time is respected.  This is a practice that will promote
inclusivity.

> the need demonstrated ...

What Adrian meant here was that you would have to show a need for a WG and
demonstrate that there is interest.  The Diversity work was not done in a
WG, but rather a design team.

> that empty general area means that IETF is not having the future of full

I don't see a big push for a WG in the General Area that would somehow
improve the Internet right now.  The General Area does have the Gen-ART
team, which you may or may not be aware of.  This team review drafts in the
IETF last call process, helping to catch issues with the draft prior to
publication.  The General area does help with diversity already as it
sometimes corrects grammar issues and catches the use of colloquialisms as
well as other identified issues to assist with inclusivity for the reader.

If you think another WG is needed, please follow the steps Adrian outlined
and start a new thread to see if there is interest.  Proposals that get
more traction are well developed and to the point in order to get support
on a topic that is of interest to a group of participants.  You may want to
think it through before proposing anything and spend time developing a
vision you think others would support and collaborate with you on.  This
thread is not helpful anymore as we have exhausted all of the points to be
made already.

Regards,
Kathleen

>
> AB
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:46:52 +0200

Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for your advise and comments. I thought the thread is helpful for
remote participant and new participant. IMHO Any input in IETF can be
helpful for someone and not helpful for another in the same time, overall
it should be related to IETF. I remember a question from one new comer in
IETF 89 meeting trainings, she asked how an area is formed by
procedure, the answer was interesting as not much procedure
available. I don't agree to follow the steps of forming a WG in general
area similar to the other areas. It is pointless for me, because there are
already hidden groups within this area not only in IETF but in any
organisation in the world.

IMHO the area should be closed as long the community has no representation
as one WG. Is it normal by procedure to have an area without a WG? Or
to have no community group for the area that is related to procedure
and management issues of IETF? The ADs are alone doing all the work for the
area without a known WG, that MUST be changed in my opinion, so I discuss
it before preparing drafts in future.

Best regards,

AB

On Monday, August 11, 2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

> [email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrian
>>
>>> Who decided the purpose for this list? I think it is about diversity,
>> and that the general area is mostly rolled by One region's old participants
>>> Forming a WG in the General Area is no different from forming a WG in
>>> any other area.
>>>
>> [email-masked] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>