Subject: Re: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:46:01 -0700

SM,

(Any items not commented on below, from your note, seem to be
suggestions for specific changes that are straightforward and, of
course, reasonable.)

On 3/19/2015 5:06 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I read the Introduction section.  It is well-written and it looks good. 
> The following text caught my attention:
> 
>   "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
>    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
>    demeanor."
> 
> I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF
> attention" was not clear to me.  From the above response I'll pick the
> following:
> 
>   (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF)
> 
>   (b) bullying and harassment
> 
> I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that the
> average reader can easily understand that the central issues are (b) and
> the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b).

If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful.

My own inclination was (and is) to rely on the table of contents to lay
that out, if the reader cannot wait to read the text that follows.

> In the Introduction Section:
> 
>   'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process.  Nomcom is itself a potentially
>    diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.'
> 
> If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue:
> 
>   "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high
>    number of female candidates, not a single one was selected."

Please explain your basis for asserting that.

Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact
of what actually happened.  It's reporting, not analysis.

> Quoting text from the draft:
> 
>   "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen
>    as reflecting IETF culture generally."
> 
> That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor
> "well-funded, American, white, male engineers". 

You are taking a description of the early days of the Arpanet research
community and applying it to current IETF operations.  The draft never
makes nor intends that linkage, particularly since the current
population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet days.

> The current IESG
> members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html  There are
> three female members.  The female members are well-funded, American and
> white.  Is it the opinion of the authors that "much diversity" is about
> the male and female question only? 

The draft offers, implies and intends no such opinion.

For example:
> Section 2.1 mentions several other
> variables.  However, the rest of the draft does not contain any
> discussion about those variables.

The draft is intended to focus on the importance of variety.  It does that.

The draft is not intended to be a general tutorial about the vast array
of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group.

> The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional
> Conduct".  Section 2.2 is about professional conduct.  Section 3 and
> Section 4 are about participation.  I suggest following a "participation
> and professional conduct" angle as the content of the draft does not
> discuss about economic status or demographics.

I do not understand what changes you are proposing, nor the problems
with the draft that these would fix.  Please be specific.

> From Section 3.2:
> 
>   "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse
>    contribution for further development.  Engagement means that it easy
>    for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously through
>    constructive interaction."
> 
> Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider
> input.  The above explains it as "making it easy for existing
> participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions".

You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement.

The text is meant to cover both external and internal, though the 'to be
heard' has a clear focus on internal.  That is, folks already attempting
to participate.

> Section 5 is about security considerations.  How would the IETF be
> affected if it is no longer viewed as:
> 
>   (a) a credible open venue
> 
>   (b) a credible productive venue
> 
>   (c) a venue where there is diversity

Please offer specific text.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:49:53 -0700

Hi Dave,
>suggestions for specific changes that are straightforward and, of

Thanks.  I'll comment below.

>If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful.

OLD

    This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
    demeanor.

NEW

   This document discusses about professional conduct and participation
   in the IETF in respect to diversity.

As a comment about the above, I kept the sentence short and avoided 
"nature and practicalities" as it may be, in my personal opinion, 
unclear to an average reader.  Please feel free to edit it as you 
might be able to find something better than what I suggested.

>that out, if the reader cannot wait to read the text that follows.

Ok.

>Please explain your basis for asserting that.

If a group is diverse it would likely have some female members.  The 
fact that there wasn't any women selected could mean:

   (i)  There isn't any diversity problem with the group

   (ii) There was a diversity problem and that explains why
        no woman was selected.

>of what actually happened.  It's reporting, not analysis.

Yes.  However, the document might be saying (i) or (ii).

>population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet days.

That is the linkage which the average reader will do.

>The draft offers, implies and intends no such opinion.

Ok.

>of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group.

Ok.

>with the draft that these would fix.  Please be specific.

What I meant was that the draft's title has "much diversity while one 
example in the draft is about women; the harassment as discussed in 
the IETF has been mainly about sexual harassment.  I don't think that 
it would be fair to ask the authors of this draft to discuss the 
other problems.  I'll say ok to the above.

>You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement.

Yes.

>heard' has a clear focus on internal.  That is, folks already attempting

This is where the question of the target audience (of the draft) 
arises.  Is it for people familiar with the IETF or is it for a wider 
audience?  For the latter, people will likely read "engagement" as 
meaning what I described as externally-oriented engagement.

>Please offer specific text.

The above points are based on the following text in the draft:

   "The security of the IETF's role in the Internet community depends
    upon its credibility as an open and productive venue for
    collaborative development of technical documents."

It is up to the authors to address those points.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 07:48:37 -0700

> unclear to an average reader.  Please feel free to edit it as you might
> be able to find something better than what I suggested.

Your explanation gives less information about what the scope of the
paper.  So, I suggest instead:

     This paper discusses IETF diversity, in terms of the nature of
diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it.

> If a group is diverse it would likely have some female members.  The

It might and it might not.

In the second paragraph of 2.1 the paper explicitly makes the point that
evaluating diversity in the IETF according to specific attributes is
problematic.  Rather, we need to look for meaningful diversity of any
kind (or, perhaps, multiple and diverse kinds.)

> Yes.  However, the document might be saying (i) or (ii).

Those choices exist for every possible attribute one might consider,
when looking at an IETF group.  And the list of possible attributes is
closer to infinite than to small.

> That is the linkage which the average reader will do.

Your invoking that text from Introduction is problematic on two counts.

The first is that its use in the Introduction is in terms of the past tense.

The second is that the first paragraph of Section 2.1 establishes a
broader and more basic scope for considering diversity in the IETF.  You
appear to be ignoring it.

> example in the draft is about women; the harassment as discussed in the
> IETF has been mainly about sexual harassment.  I don't think that it
> would be fair to ask the authors of this draft to discuss the other
> problems.  I'll say ok to the above.

The draft does not discuss /any/ form of harassment in detail, including
sexual harassment.

The draft is not attempting to summarize or even to particularly
reflect the IETF's discussion of harassment.

> meaning what I described as externally-oriented engagement.

I've no idea what your basis for saying that is.  First, the word is
regularly used to refer variously to external and internal engagement.
For example in the American Red Cross there is reference  to Community
Engagement and to Volunteer Engagement, pointing outward and inward
respectively.

In any event, the second paragraph of Section 3.2, the draft says
explicitly what it means in the use here.  So the use within the
document is clear.

> It is up to the authors to address those points.

Actually, it up to the IETF.

d/