Subject: [Diversity] Questions from USA Today

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:41:23 -0700

Hello,

There were the following questions in USA Today (print edition):

   - Why is it important for the IETF [1] to me more diverse?

   - Have the numbers improved since you've been at the IETF [2]?

   - Do you have goals and timetables for diversity?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. I replaced "technology industry" with IETF.
2. The original question was about Facebook.

---

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:56:04 +0000

For what it's worth, today's online edition of USA Today features an
article on this subject:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2014/08/13/analysis-tech-boards-should-bear-some-responsibility-for-diversity-woes/13459625/

As this pertains to the IETF, in my opinion, the IETF is competing
with other activities that have a great deal of appeal, and can
fulfill short-term gratification, such as code jams, hackathons, etc.
In comparison, reviewing technical drafts requires a much steeper
learning curve.  Also, it's not perceived to be as much fun because
it's not interactive like a social or mobile app.

--gregbo

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:41:23AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:47:44 +0200

Mainly More academic participants are recommended for IETF. As I agree that
IETF becomes more directed by industry and less by users (users include
industry and academy) from time to time.

>   - Why is it important for the IETF [1] to me more diverse?

Diverse in all its areas. The future is for diverse technology business or
diverse economy. All standard organisations are having big competition
while technology is getting more complicated and integrated in relation
with the users/markets/industry that are globalised.

>   - Have the numbers improved since you've been at the IETF [2]?

Yes, I think so but can be seen as slow, we may have loosing participants
also because the number of participants are not increasing. IMHO on
average the speed is may be 2 per WG per year and 20 per year per IETF.

>   - Do you have goals and timetables for diversity?

You mean does IETF have that. No, the IETF is now waiting for the DT to do
some work, there is still no WG for this for IETF to have goals and real
progress in this diversity issue.

For my personal effort for IETF diversity, I think the goal is to convince
influencers/private-groups to not block forming a WG for the diversity
problem, then we can discuss other related to the WG. If I was more
available in IETF meetings I will work for that but still not available
only remotely. IMHO in any field/area the DT has low performance if the WG
does not exist.

AB

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:00:40 -0400

Thanks for posting the article, Greg!

While the Noncom did a great job last year, we'll all have to make sure the
trend to be inclusive and promote diversity continues.  Hopefully, through
the nominating process, we'll get a good group of diverse candidate to
chose from (hint: nominate them!).  Mentoring may be key here too.  If you
are not aware, the Noncom changed their review process last year to include
a blind part of the process.  This required the candidates to fill out part
of the questionnaires in a way that they could not be identified for more
equal footing in the start of the selection process.  The continued
conversations on the topic of diversity will hopefully lead to more ideas
and actions that spur from the work.  We clearly need to continue making
(and maintaining) progress.

Many are making efforts to identify folks to be mentored to move into IETF
leadership roles, but we may not know all of the good candidates.
 Hopefully, the mentor program can help people interested get themselves
known or others will help to identify them.

The mentor program, the fellows program, and policy leader programs are
also intended to increase diversity.

Are there ideas for other programs that should be started?  Is there some
aspect of the existing ones that can be improved?

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:06:48 -0700

Hi Greg,
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2014/08/13/analysis-tech-boards-should-bear-some-responsibility-for-diversity-woes/13459625/

Thanks for the URL.

>it's not interactive like a social or mobile app.

Short-term gratifications do not solve problems.  I agree that there 
is a learning curve for reviewing technical drafts.  There are some 
technical and non-technical aspects in performing a review.  I 
(several persons helped me) looked into the matter some time 
back.  It required a lot of effort to get results.  It helps to 
factor in some IETF problems [1] and to assess whether there is progress.

Regards,
S. moonesamy

1. I cannot explain what they are.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:19:21 +0200

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your input.

> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2014/08/13/analysis-tech-boards-should-bear-some-responsibility-for-diversity-woes/13459625/
I think that analysis  is important and can be for IETF as well, and the
most important that  we need to solve it in IETF if it appears. Or we can
do some analysis on the IETF management as google/Facebook done.

> it's not interactive like a social or mobile app.

IETF community reviews is another problem which is not diverse, I have been
reviewing some drafts and trying to interact with their authors but they
respond only after my request messages to chairs/AD that authors should
interact with reviewers. Many IETF editors need training to be responsive
and accept diversity opinions/suggestions.

An example: One WG editor has even refused to acknowledge my efforts and
has been backed up with the WG AD as saying my efforts were not substantial
(so I now may not review with harder efforts, they analysed reviewers'
input, forgetting to target the draft not reviewers). When I complained to
see what IESG thinks, they did not acknowledge, so I found IETF does
not encourage diverse efforts. I think IETF effort to solve diversity is
not substantial which will be needing long term.

AB

> > [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 13:56:00 +0200

AB,

[...]

> 
> An example: One WG editor has even refused to acknowledge my efforts and has been backed up with the WG AD as saying my efforts were not substantial (so I now may not review with harder efforts, they analysed reviewers' input, forgetting to target the draft not reviewers). When I complained to see what IESG thinks, they did not acknowledge, so I found IETF does not encourage diverse efforts. I think IETF effort to solve diversity is not substantial which will be needing long term. 

What gives you the idea that this is because of diversity reasons? I have looked at that case, and as far as I can see (granted, I was not directly involved) that didn't play a role. I think you should try to separate your personal frustration that the IESG didn't agree with you from the larger issue of diversity.

Klaas

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 12:36:56 +0200

Klaas,

My answers to the USA questions were posted from one country at North
Africa and not from USA country (usually IETF has more USA
participants and more meetings in America region). I think that many
people enjoy volunteer work when They work with others that
encourage/thank their volunteerings (because they the editors and the
reviewers, all volunteer for IETF vision not for personal
benefits/business). However, I just think that All Reviewers should
enjoy working with IETF editors. Comments below,

On Friday, August 15, 2014, Klaas Wierenga wrote:
> What gives you the idea that this is because of diversity reasons?

IMO that is because of lack of diversity in reviews of the IETF
submitted works. If draft-editor distinguishes comments per WGLC and
only acknowledge substantial comments that may reduce future
opportunity of diverse input per discussion-call (i.e, opportunity per
point as more inputs after seeing one small input and makes people
find a decision per point) even though we already have very low volume
of reviews per adopted draft.

Furthermore, in IETF some reviews are done privately and some in
public, we want to encourage public reviews more than private because
public reviews introduces diverse discussions/analysis within WG, but
editors may not acknowledge a public review and acknowledge a private
one. Public review is more difficult than private because that
public-review can request more discussions by reviewer (as authors
become responsible to respond because of their draft process and
reviewers responsible to respond for their input). IMHO IETF needs
more comments and public reviews per LC. IETF RFCs need to not ignore
thanking small public efforts, RFCs should be sensitive to all
efforts.

>  I have looked at that case, and as far as I can see (granted, I was not directly involved) that didn't play a role. I think you should try to separate your personal frustration that the IESG didn't agree with you from the larger issue of diversity.

I accepted the decision with good relationship with all (did not enjoy
working with some editors), but I thought it was not helping diversity
in reviews, so I now am using the example. There are no frustrations
by both sides (participant or management) just discussions for best
future practices. We all may make wrong/right judgment but it is good
to discuss different examples and point of views. Overall, IETF should
collect the statistics/experiences for diversity analysis as google
and facebook done to answer those questions correctly.

Regards,

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 07:45:07 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 11:47 PM 8/13/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>Yes, I think so but can be seen as slow, we may have loosing 
>participants also because the number of participants are not 
>increasing. IMHO on average the speed is may be 2 per WG per year 
>and 20 per year per IETF.

The numbers have not improved in the Area which I usually participate 
in.  A look at [email-masked] mailing list might show whether the 
numbers have changed.  Here's the list of participants from last week 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg89137.html There 
is one person from Africa.  There isn't anyone from Latin America, 
China, Japan or Korea.

>For my personal effort for IETF diversity, I think the goal is to 
>convince influencers/private-groups to not block forming a WG for 
>the diversity problem, then we can discuss other related to the WG. 
>If I was more available in IETF meetings I will work for that but 
>still not available only remotely. IMHO in any field/area the DT has 
>low performance if the WG does not exist.

The difference between a team and a working group is the 
formality.  There would have to be a problem statement for a working 
group to work on.  I would not try to convince anyone to do something 
when the mailing list archive shows that there is very little 
interest in the questions (see subject line).  Any effort without any 
goal and/or timetable is an effort without any results.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 13:44:39 -0400

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:45 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> also because the number of participants are not increasing. IMHO on average
>> the speed is may be 2 per WG per year and 20 per year per IETF.
>>
>
> The numbers have not improved in the Area which I usually participate in.
> A look at [email-masked] mailing list might show whether the numbers have
> changed.  Here's the list of participants from last week
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg89137.html There is
> one person from Africa.  There isn't anyone from Latin America, China,
> Japan or Korea.
>
>
>> convince influencers/private-groups to not block forming a WG for the
>> diversity problem, then we can discuss other related to the WG. If I was
>> more available in IETF meetings I will work for that but still not
>> available only remotely. IMHO in any field/area the DT has low performance
>> if the WG does not exist.
>>
>
> The difference between a team and a working group is the formality.  There
> would have to be a problem statement for a working group to work on.  I
> would not try to convince anyone to do something when the mailing list
> archive shows that there is very little interest in the questions (see
> subject line).  Any effort without any goal and/or timetable is an effort
> without any results.
>

One of the main differences is that the design team identified a few
projects and the projects split off from the design team and the diversity
list to meet their objectives.  Or the effort was spurred on by this push
and was managed through the IAB or ISOC.  Another example is the team
developing CodeMatch.  If it was a working group, it would be harder to
manage all of the separate projects, but we are able to break off into
smaller groups and accomplish things that should incrementally improve
things.

Best regards,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:55:10 -0700

Hi Kathleen,
At 10:44 16-08-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>projects and the projects split off from the design team and the 
>diversity list to meet their objectives.  Or the effort was spurred 
>on by this push and was managed through the IAB or ISOC.

I assume that the projects mentioned above refers to what is listed 
at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/diversity-dt/  I don't find any 
of those mentioned in the public information provided by the IAB.  I 
did a quick search and could not find anything relating to IAB and 
diversity.  I read 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-iab-techplenary-1.pdf 
and 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-iab-techplenary-11.pdf 
and I did not find any objectives related to topics which have been 
discussed on this mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy