Subject: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:20:20 -0700

Hi Nalini,

I am following up on part of your message on this mailing 
list.  Although I could discuss about the topic on the IETF 
Discussion list I avoided doing that as it might generate a long thread.

At 13:18 14-07-2016, [email-masked] wrote:
>I am going to say that [email-masked] is a somewhat special 
>case.   Some of us in the U.S. (and I count myself among them!) feel 
>quite free to voice our opinions on all kinds of topics.   We take 
>our freedom of speech seriously!   I know I feel sometimes that I 
>should probably "cool it" and go write some code instead of spouting 
>off on the [email-masked] list.  So, I suppose there may be some 
>cultural issues here.

There was a time where I would use the words "culture issues" as a 
description.  From what I read there are different national concepts 
about it.  In some parts of the IETF it is known that [email-masked] 
subscribers take freedom of speech seriously.

I'll quote some text from an IESG discussion:

   "It is in the nature of the IETF to be intimidating to non engineers or to
    less qualified engineers.  Feeling intimidated because one is ignorant and
    where nobody is trying to do harm is something that is ok. Trying 
to intimidate
    is not ok, attempting to intimidate because someone is young, 
old, etc. is not
    ok, but that was already stated."

And from an IETF mailing list:

   "For Example, Native English speakers may think that they are best 
contributors
    but they are wrong, because people chosen the language to be used 
with no smart
    reason."

Would it be better that you and I have a conversation or would it be 
better if I agree with your opinion?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:03:44 +0000 (UTC)

>   where nobody is trying to do harm is something that is ok. Trying to intimidate
 >   is not ok, attempting to intimidate because someone is young, old, etc. is not

 >  contributors but they are wrong, because people chosen the language to be used > with no smart reason."

>better if I agree with your opinion?

Please, let's have a conversation.   I am quite interested in your thoughts.  Is using "cultural issues" too broad a term or somehow offensive?  I would like to learn what is better to use or how to talk about this.   I really was not meaning to be offensive.

Thanks,
Nalini

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:35:25 -0700

Hi Nalini,
At 06:03 15-07-2016, [email-masked] wrote:
>Please, let's have a conversation.   I am quite interested in your 
>thoughts.  Is using "cultural issues" too broad a term or somehow 
>offensive?  I would like to learn what is better to use or how to 
>talk about this.   I really was not meaning to be offensive.

You have not said anything offensive or done anything which I might 
view as offensive.

The term is neither too broad nor is it offensive (in my opinion).  I 
am seen that term in use and I have used it too.  Around a year ago I 
noticed that some of the persons (not in the IETF) with whom I was 
communicating with did not understand what the term means.  Based on 
a few messages on [email-masked] from people of different countries, 
my understanding is that the term might be read differently.  It may 
be easier to talk to people from different countries to understand 
how to talk about it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:57:03 +0200

I don't understand your message, why some people don't understand or some
may read differently. Please explain in more so we can learn. I support
your idea that there are best ways of discussing between different people
but we need to discuss what are the best ways. However, freedom in speech
is not the best way of discussion, so IMHO best practice in discussions is
that people on ietf list know that the IETF is an international
organisation, and that to be polite is not to be free in using English
words/statements.

In my experience on the IETF list, there are people that are not polite,
and no clear regulation is doing any thing clear about it. That makes
freedom as many like it to be. I don't mind freedom as long there is a
police/auditor that can take my rights. Your freedom or any person's
freedom must not conflict with any other person's freedom.

AB

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:35 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> offensive?  I would like to learn what is better to use or how to talk
>> about this.   I really was not meaning to be offensive.
>>
>
> You have not said anything offensive or done anything which I might view
> as offensive.
>
> The term is neither too broad nor is it offensive (in my opinion).  I am
> seen that term in use and I have used it too.  Around a year ago I noticed
> that some of the persons (not in the IETF) with whom I was communicating
> with did not understand what the term means.  Based on a few messages on
> [email-masked] from people of different countries, my understanding is
> that the term might be read differently.  It may be easier to talk to
> people from different countries to understand how to talk about it.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:29:49 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 02:57 18-07-2016, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I don't understand your message, why some people don't understand or 
>some may read differently. Please explain in more so we can learn. I 
>support your idea that there are best ways of discussing between 
>different people but we need to discuss what are the best ways. 
>However, freedom in speech is not the best way of discussion, so 
>IMHO best practice in discussions is that people on ietf list know 
>that the IETF is an international organisation, and that to be 
>polite is not to be free in using English words/statements.

The less difficult way is to discuss in person as you and I can see 
whether we are understanding each other.  It is not affordable for 
everyone to do that due to the cost of travel.

The freedom of expression allows you to discuss with me by replying 
to my message.  The alternative is have the persons managing this 
mailing list decide whether you can discuss with me.

The following was recently posted to the IETF discussion list: 
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/EnsuringAppropriateDiscussionOnIetfAtIetfList 
If there is anything impolite, please send an email to the persons 
listed as the contact person for that problem so that the problem can 
be solved.

>In my experience on the IETF list, there are people that are not 
>polite, and no clear regulation is doing any thing clear about it. 
>That makes freedom as many like it to be. I don't mind freedom as 
>long there is a police/auditor that can take my rights. Your freedom 
>or any person's freedom must not conflict with any other person's freedom.

I agree that there may be people who are not polite.  There are 
existing rules (much more than before) to deal with that.  The police 
does not intervene unless there is a complaint.  It is similar for 
IETF discussions.  I read the IETF discussion list regularly as I am 
one of the Facilitators for that mailing list.  I did not notice any 
message which might be considered as impolite being addressed to 
you.  That does not mean that there isn't anything impolite.  Please 
do contact one or more of the persons mentioned in the link I 
provided above if you encounter a problem.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy