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

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:51:32 +0100

> >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.
> 
> It will unfortunately damage relationships.

SM is right. It will most certainly damage relationships. You cannot go around
making statements in public forums that specific chairs have acted improperly by
allowing unspecified things to happen. This is a significant slur on their
characters.

Furthermore, it is impossible to enter into a debate on this point with you
because, while you say that there are real cases and while you attribute them to
lack of diversity considerations, you do not explain yourself.

If I am able to look at a specific case, I will be able to explain to you why
and how a decision was made, or I will be able to express my concerns to the
chairs involved and use this as a way to train them. 

Otherwise I can only use my judgement about how things tend to progress on
mailing lists. What I sometimes see is that unsubstantiated statements of
opinion ("I do not support this draft being adopted") are treated as votes and
so nearly completely ignored -- a chair with unlimited time might respond
"Please tell us your reasons," but usually the original poll stated something
like "If you do not support, please give your reasons," so not following up is
understandable. What I also see is that reasons that are irrelevant are either
refuted or ignored: I would prefer that they were refuted ("The reason you give
is not relevant to the process of adoption, but I hope we can work on the issue
as the draft progresses"), but I understand how this may create the impression
that the person giving the reason has been ignored.

Now (and I find this to be a very important point), the assertion that this is a
diversity issue worries me a lot. You appear to be saying that there is a
prevalence of cases where the person who is ignored comes in some sense from a
specific community. Furthermore, you are implying either that they are being
ignored consciously or unconsciously) because they come from that community, or
that by ignoring the person we are neglecting the opinions of that community.
Either of these points would be very worrying, so (again) I call on you to
substantiate your assertion so that we can properly investigate and rectify any
issues.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:59:46 +0200

Hi Kathleen and Moonesamy,

My first message was to help bring an remote observation here on the list
and discuss the way to avoid it happening in the IETF future I don't care
about the past, so it was never about complaining. I think it was more
important to discuss how to stop/block ignorance to happen (did IETF solve
the blocking?) than to question did the observation happen and/or starting
argue what was details/reasons on all parties then second thinking how to
solve. However, my replies has to answer to others,

On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:21 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.

It some time does not happen to get consensus on the list only at
meetings, but usually no objection or complaints from community. If chairs
are busy may be community are busy as well, but IETF should be busy to its
business and future. IETF should have blocking of undesirable situations in
lists or in meetings.

>
> >
> >> 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.

Yes, so now we are starting discussing it and documenting the observation
and discussion on this list then some one will get interested to write or
present to the IETF meetings.

> 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.
> >

Therefore, the best way in this discussion to discuss how IETF avoids this
claim to happen ( no need to find out reasons of failure or
misunderstandings or mistakes), the most important thing did IETF make it
clear to its positions not to do such reaction. Did IETF confirm that it
does not allow silence in discussions/replays to community within WG? Let
us solve by targeting IETF not targeting observers or managers/editors.

> >
> >> 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] <javascript:;> mailing list there would be some
> impolite comments.

Does IETF organisation/procedures/General-Area/RFCs-related
consider/understand the word or does it mention/consider such
situation that is making some damage in the IETF future and that IETF
considers solving.

>
> > 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.

What am interested to know were those inputs from WG chairs or WG editors?
If yes then what did IETF do to solve? If both don't care then IMHO it is
bad for IETF future.

> >
> 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).

I think a reminder at each IETF meeting is good, as to remind WGs of
diversity considerations and to remind chairs and editors to reply as best
as they can. So when the chair announces the reminders (they always
announce note-well and forget announcing this reply issue), if there was
some one had no reply she/he will be happy to say "oh I am still waiting
for such reply related to blabla", the environment of discussion and
meeting will make progress.

> >> 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

I think within discussions and work process we should be interacting
equally to all without considering those. For example, if a chair or AD
asks a question in any room/WG/list a quick respond will be received may be
different if they posted with a unknown name (this test can be tried by
management and for their analysis if they want to investigate IETF
behavior). The organisation diversity considerations as we have in our
engineering security considerations, does
our protocol/procedure/RFC/positions consider/allow increase
in diversity/security?

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

What about reminders to them all, as when AD put on his hat he/she is
reminded of such considerations. So the IETF top-bottom project is more
about taking more attention/reaction on higher positions to consider
diversity development, therefore, we can say IETF is more diversity
understanding/considering.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:03:27 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 02:59 01-08-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>meetings, but usually no objection or complaints from community. If 
>chairs are busy may be community are busy as well, but IETF should 
>be busy to its business and future. IETF should have blocking of 
>undesirable situations in lists or in meetings.

The above mentions that there wasn't any objection or complaint from 
the community (which I interpret as the working group 
participants).  It is mentioned that there was consensus at meetings 
and, if I understood correctly, there wasn't consensus on the mailing 
list on the adoption of the draft.  I assume that this is within the 
Routing Area.  I suggest providing some information (off-list) to the 
Routing Area Directors ( http://tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/ ).

>Yes, so now we are starting discussing it and documenting the 
>observation and discussion on this list then some one will get 
>interested to write or present to the IETF meetings.

I suggest waiting until the end of this month to see whether there is 
input from other participants about this matter.

>Therefore, the best way in this discussion to discuss how IETF 
>avoids this claim to happen ( no need to find out reasons of failure 
>or misunderstandings or mistakes), the most important thing did IETF 
>make it clear to its positions not to do such reaction. Did IETF 
>confirm that it does not allow silence in discussions/replays to 
>community within WG? Let us solve by targeting IETF not targeting 
>observers or managers/editors.

What is the meaning of "IETF" in the above?  I am asking this 
question as it is not possible to comment about whether the "IETF 
confirm ..." when the meaning of "IETF" is not clear.

>situation that is making some damage in the IETF future and that 
>IETF considers solving.

I gave my personal opinion.  It is not the opinion of an organisation 
called "IETF"; it is not an opinion documented in any procedures; it 
is not an opinion of the General Area; it is not a word mentioned in 
any related RFCs.

>What am interested to know were those inputs from WG chairs or WG 
>editors? If yes then what did IETF do to solve? If both don't care 
>then IMHO it is bad for IETF future.

There is a recording of the plenary at 
http://recordings.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF90_ADMIN_PLENARY&chapter=chapter_0

>equally to all without considering those. For example, if a chair or 
>AD asks a question in any room/WG/list a quick respond will be 
>received may be different if they posted with a unknown name (this 
>test can be tried by management and for their analysis if they want 
>to investigate IETF behavior). The organisation diversity 
>considerations as we have in our engineering security 
>considerations, does our protocol/procedure/RFC/positions 
>consider/allow increase in diversity/security?

If I understood the above correctly, the comments from people with 
unknown names are ignored.

>What about reminders to them all, as when AD put on his hat he/she 
>is reminded of such considerations. So the IETF top-bottom project 
>is more about taking more attention/reaction on higher positions to 
>consider diversity development, therefore, we can say IETF is more 
>diversity understanding/considering.

In the previous (quoted) paragraph it is mentioned that "within 
discussions and work process we should be interacting equally to all 
without considering those".  My understanding of the word "diversity" 
in the above paragraph is that it is about a person with an unknown 
name.  What is being suggested is that there should be more attention 
to comments from a person with an unknown name.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 11:58:11 +0200

Hi Moonesamy,

If I was some one that don't consider diversity, then I will check what are
you as male/female, manager/officer, academic/industry,
from-large-company/from-small-company, etc. then I will react to you in
different ways depending of the above items. That behaviour is not right
and will not help IETF to diversify, so that way of reaction should not get
into IETF positions (chairs, editors, etc). IMHO We (i.e. IETF general
area community) don't want IETF to be drived by only big industry
companies, or drived by only big countries.

The internet was created by an organisation not by a person. Usually
organisations are more important for countries than the persons,
communities gather within organisations and bodies. Replies below,

On Friday, August 1, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

> The above mentions that there wasn't any objection or complaint from the
> community (which I interpret as the working group participants).  It is
> mentioned that there was consensus at meetings and, if I understood
> correctly, there wasn't consensus on the mailing list on the adoption of
> the draft.  I assume that this is within the Routing Area.  I suggest
> providing some information (off-list) to the Routing Area Directors (
> http://tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/ ).

The above means the community or WGs don't usually complain or object about
process, even when they are not busy and chair is busy, so IETF should do
something.

> input from other participants about this matter.

This list is not a WG list, the IETF general area has no adopted ietf work
related to community diversity.

>  Therefore, the best way in this discussion to discuss how IETF avoids
>> this claim to happen ( no need to find out reasons of failure or
> What is the meaning of "IETF" in the above?  I am asking this question as
> it is not possible to comment about whether the "IETF confirm ..." when the
> meaning of "IETF" is not clear.

We are working in IETF. Any input from you to IETF it becomes owned by
IETF. IETF is an organisation that exists and is registered. IETF has
representatives, so you can speak to the IETF through the IETF chair, Jari
is the current representative, so IETF can speak to you to explain what it
is. I receive messages from IETF and you do as well, so do you still don't
define it. The meaning of IETF is very clear if you read about it in the
net or in its documents.

IETF is an organisation with objectives, business, structure and system,
all organisations have that and they have speakers for it and decision
making system and process system. Usually who study engineering and
computer science don't consider that organisations think, plan, speak , and
decide, but who study business consider that organisations think, plan,
speak and decide.

>> consider/understand the word or does it mention/consider such situation
>> that is making some damage in the IETF future and that IETF considers
>> solving.
>>
>
> called "IETF"; it is not an opinion documented in any procedures; it is not
> an opinion of the General Area; it is not a word mentioned in any related
> RFCs.

I know that you are not speaker for IETF. However, the questions means that
there is a need for IETF to involve to solve not just wait for DT to solve
or from a small participant to solve. There is no WG in general area, do
you know this.

>> editors? If yes then what did IETF do to solve? If both don't care then
>> IMHO it is bad for IETF future.
>>
>
> There is a recording of the plenary at http://recordings.conf.
> meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF90_ADMIN_
> PLENARY&chapter=chapter_0

The questions can be answered directly as if some one is saying busy and
he/she is chair then the IETF is having a problem, you gave examples of
inputs complaining of issues but you example did not mention their
diversity position (were they chairs, editors, AD, participant). Is there
minutes written in IETF general area for the above meeting subject or this
meeting effort done?

>> engineering security considerations, does our protocol/procedure/RFC/positions
> If I understood the above correctly, the comments from people with unknown
> names are ignored.

Yes, ignored by known IETF people, so in IETF who feels known in IETF may
ignore new/remote participant, which IMHO still IETF allows that even if
the ignorer was WG chair/editor. The IETF community to be diverse needs to
welcome and respond to new names that are not known by IETF especially when
new participants are making effort related to an IETF draft.

> without considering those".  My understanding of the word "diversity" in
> the above paragraph is that it is about a person with an unknown name.
>  What is being suggested is that there should be more attention to comments
> from a person with an unknown name.

Not only unknown name, diversity is about minority not getting chance to be
known and treated the same as other majority. What is minority or majority
related? It is either relationship, position, gender, origin,
religion,  industry, academic, etc.

The unknown name can be both the participant's name or his/her
company/university/country. For example if majority of participants are
from one country they usually know its companies through
its products/standards, the majority participant usually ignores to discuss
other standards/issues related to new participants' known issues. Some may
say then the new participant should write a new draft, but why not they
work together and interact in the WG without ignorance behaviour.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:43:56 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 02:58 02-08-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>The above means the community or WGs don't usually complain or 
>object about process, even when they are not busy and chair is busy, 
>so IETF should do something.

I'll use a case to explain my opinion.  There is a write-up at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg12415.html 
There weren't any complaints or objections to what is written in that 
message.  I don't see any reason to do something to change that.

In my personal opinion people usually complain when they think that 
there is a problem.  My guess is that there are very little (public) 
objections about process.  An Area Director can ask me to provide an 
explanation for what I wrote.   In this case I would have to provide 
information to show why I think that there are very little objections.

>This list is not a WG list, the IETF general area has no adopted 
>ietf work related to community diversity.

My understanding of the above is that my previous suggestion has been 
rejected because of process.

>We are working in IETF. Any input from you to IETF it becomes owned 
>by IETF. IETF is an organisation that exists and is registered. IETF 
>has representatives, so you can speak to the IETF through the IETF 
>chair, Jari is the current representative, so IETF can speak to you 
>to explain what it is. I receive messages from IETF and you do as 
>well, so do you still don't define it. The meaning of IETF is very 
>clear if you read about it in the net or in its documents.

Getting back to your question, it is about whether the IETF Chair 
confirmed "that it does not allow silence in discussions/replays to 
community within WG".  RFC 2418 discusses about working group matters.

>IETF is an organisation with objectives, business, structure and 
>system, all organisations have that and they have speakers for it 
>and decision making system and process system. Usually who study 
>engineering and computer science don't consider that organisations 
>think, plan, speak , and decide, but who study business consider 
>that organisations think, plan, speak and decide.

Ok.

>I know that you are not speaker for IETF. However, the questions 
>means that there is a need for IETF to involve to solve not just 
>wait for DT to solve or from a small participant to solve. There is 
>no WG in general area, do you know this.

I am aware that there aren't any working groups in the General Area.

>The questions can be answered directly as if some one is saying busy 
>and he/she is chair then the IETF is having a problem, you gave 
>examples of inputs complaining of issues but you example did not 
>mention their diversity position (were they chairs, editors, AD, 
>participant). Is there minutes written in IETF general area for the 
>above meeting subject or this meeting effort done?

There are the minutes of proceedings 
(http://www.ietf.org/meeting/proceedings.html ).  The minutes for the 
last meeting are not available yet.

>Yes, ignored by known IETF people, so in IETF who feels known in 
>IETF may ignore new/remote participant, which IMHO still IETF allows 
>that even if the ignorer was WG chair/editor. The IETF community to 
>be diverse needs to welcome and respond to new names that are not 
>known by IETF especially when new participants are making effort 
>related to an IETF draft.

I'll comment below.

>Not only unknown name, diversity is about minority not getting 
>chance to be known and treated the same as other majority. What is 
>minority or majority related? It is either relationship, position, 
>gender, origin, religion,  industry, academic, etc.

There is a message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00566.html 
I read that message and I read the two paragraphs quoted above.  The 
comments are inconsistent.  For example, one comment could be understood as:

    Mr Baryun thinks "within discussions and work process we should 
be interacting
    equally to all without considering" relationship, position, gender, origin,
    religion, industry, academic, etc.

Or:

    Mr Baryun thinks that the IETF community needs to give people a 
chance to be
    known as they are currently not known because of their 
relationship, position,
    gender, origin, religion, industry, academic, etc.

>For example if majority of participants are from one country they 
>usually know its companies through its products/standards, the 
>majority participant usually ignores to discuss other 
>standards/issues related to new participants' known issues.

In other words, some participants from one country do not want to 
discuss about an issue raised by a new participant.  If the issue is 
about a technical problem the new participant can send his or her 
objection to the Working Group Chair.  If the issue is about the 
process followed by the working group the new participant can also 
send his or her objection to the Working Group Chair.  In both cases, 
it is up to the new participant to explain the issue.  If the 
objection was, for example:

   Why was issue X ignored?

it will be rejected as it does not contain any information about why 
issue X is a problem.  If the objection was, for example:

   I have an objection as the working group did not follow the process.

it will be rejected as it does not contain any information about the 
steps which were not followed.

>Some may say then the new participant should write a new draft, but 
>why not they work together and interact in the WG without ignorance behaviour

I don't think that it is possible to make Person X work or interact 
with Person Y if Person X does not want to do that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy