Subject: [Diversity] draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:26:00 -0700

Hi Narelle, Dave,

I read draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01.  I am not thinking clearly 
as I write this.  Quoting from Section 2.1:

   "The same people from the same education and experience will all
    too readily bring the same ideas forward and subject them to the
    same analysis, thus diminishing the likelihood for new ideas and
    methods to emerge, or underlying problems to be noted."

Another problem is if the new people are given to believe that it is 
appropriate to think like the same people.  In other words, what is 
being fostered is a culture which prevents new ideas from emerging.

   "Nomcom is itself a potentially diverse group of IETF participants,
    chosen almost at random."

That should, in theory, prevent the problem(s) mentioned about from 
happening.  I rephrase the quoted text as:

    Nomcom is itself a potentially diverse group of IETF attendees,
    chosen almost at random.

and some text from the draft:

    in the late 1980s, participation in the group became fully open,
    permitting attendance by anyone in the United States.

The above would not be a problem as most of the people who might wish 
to participate are from the United States and the cost of the airfare 
and hotel would not be too expensive.  As more people from the rest 
of the world take an interest in participating the cost ends up being 
too expensive for some people, whether they are from the United 
States or from other countries.  This is where attendance becomes 
dependent upon working for a corporation.

Rephrasing text again:

    Nomcom is itself a potentially diverse group of corporate IETF
    attendees, chosen almost at random.

Even though the selection is still random the results would be skewed 
as the population is no longer diverse.  It is unlikely that the 
selection process would encourage varying attributes among members 
and that is what triggered the diversity debate.

It is difficult to attain a balance (Section 3.4).  Mailing list 
participation is more onerous.  The cost is, unfortunately, not 
quantified.  I'll go off-topic here (feel free to ignore).  The IETF 
measures RFC authorship.  The IETF does not measure reviews.  A 
person may bring in a new idea.  A significant amount of the work 
might be from other persons, i.e. the reviewers.  The external view 
is that the author wrote everything.

The value of a contribution (Section 3.6) is a subjective 
assessment.  The point in the second sentence is about the 
contribution triggering a negative reaction.  It took me some time to 
realize that I was reading "contribution" in an IETF sense instead of 
the way it was (likely) intended.

I agree that "obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than 
generic good will and statements of principle".  This is where the 
fear of retribution comes in.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:05:51 +0200

Hello Moonesamy,

On Friday, August 29, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

> Hi Narelle, Dave,
>
> I read draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01.  I am not thinking clearly as
> I write this.  Quoting from Section 2.1:
>

I don't agree totally with that.

> appropriate to think like the same people.  In other words, what is being
> fostered is a culture which prevents new ideas from emerging.

IMHO New ideas come from young participants or new ideas come from
interaction between different experiences.

>    chosen almost at random."

 Random chosen does not maintain diversity in the Nomcom, because if we
have 10 women per 100 men attendance, and 10 Asians per 100 Americans
attendance, then when randomly chosen we get a high possibility of
getting all Nomcom members becoming men and Americans. I usually prefer a
random choosing with considerations for diversity to ensure increase of
IETF diversity.

AB

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:21:34 +0400

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> [2014-08-29 00:26:00 -0700]:
> happening.

How?

> I rephrase the quoted text as:
>
...
> Even though the selection is still random the results would be skewed as
> the population is no longer diverse.  It is unlikely that the selection
> process would encourage varying attributes among members and that is
> what triggered the diversity debate.

Exactly.  I don't understand how you're squaring this with the above. 
position.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:10:20 -0700

Hi Pranesh,
>How?

I assume that it is random sampling where everyone stands an equal 
chance of being selected.

>Exactly.  I don't understand how you're squaring this with the 
>above. position.

I have written a draft about the matter.  It might explain my position.

I am not thinking clearly enough to be able to provided a good answer 
to the question.  Sorry about that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy