Subject: [Diversity] A Diversity WG? [Was: Diverse-group or non-diverse-group]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 16:20:56 +0100

> > The following persons commented on the thread about the draft:

[snip]
 
> The above are IETF participants that read the draft, and they are
> interested in the related General Area problem. Does the General Area
> director care about this document, please check with the AD and reply.
> The above names may help to form a new WG as an IETF General Area WG.

Of course, after hearing discussions on this list, and after making their own
deliberations and consultation, the Diversity DT may recommend the formation of
a WG.

But I would be interested in knowing what you suggest would be the scope,
deliverables, and milestones milestones for such a WG.

A WG is not a discussion forum! It is a venue for doing targeted and focused
work. So, IMHO, the suggestion to form a WG should be accompanied by some
proposals for what that WG would do.

On the other hand, if there is only one I-D on the table, then why have a WG to
work on it when there are already two mailing lists where it can be discussed?

> > Let's assume that the above is a non-diverse group.  What is a
> > diverse group?   Which IETF mailing list should I use to communicate
> > with the diverse group?
> 
> I beleive that in IETF we/you can get a diverse group, but the above
> names are not enough. Diverse Group: is a group that has
> included/represent all different participants interests/issues related
> to IETF best practices or IETF procedures.

Oh, and this is where I get upset :-(
Trying to form a group that is fully diverse may involve going through curious
processes to get full participation. How can you be sure that you have
participation from every minority unless you track and label every category of
people. I, for one, am not prepared to disclose my religious beliefs or
educational background in order to satisfy that criterion.

But "inclusivity," on the other hand, is a great target. Inclusivity means
making sure that the forum is open and welcoming to a full variety of people
regardless of their backgrounds and abilities.

Inclusivity can be achieved by answering the question: Who would like to
participate in this discussion, and what is holding them back?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 11:46:35 -0700

>proposals for what that WG would do.

I think that the concern may be that the Diversity Team has not 
produced any results.  I am assuming that unless someone states 
otherwise.  There is a venue for discussion.  However, there is any 
targeted or focused work.  Let's say that a person feels discomfort 
or finds the situation unbearable.  There is not much a person can do 
about it as there isn't any formal group or procedures to request action.

The other side of the question is there isn't anything which a 
working group can use as input for its deliverables.

>educational background in order to satisfy that criterion.

In my opinion it is unlikely that there will be full participation in 
a group in which each member is chosen because of a distinctive quality.

>regardless of their backgrounds and abilities.

Open and welcoming is a better choice than fully diverse.

>participate in this discussion, and what is holding them back?

That's a good question.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 07:32:28 +0200

Hi Adrian,
CC: General Area AD,

Thanks for your message. My concerns is that many people in IETF have
already sent their interest to solve the diversity problems in IETF
list and then now we got to have discussions in this Diversity List
and got the DT that are working on issues off-list and on-list.
However, we may need to group (as suggested) thoes interested
people/efforts, and then find the scope agreed on into an IETF WG for
better work or more diverse participation involvement. Comments below,

> deliberations and consultation, the Diversity DT may recommend the formation

I agree with you, but that means that my discussions and questions are
helpful/needed as well to show my/our reasons and interests.
Discovering the IETF problems facing an individual into the
discussions is to encourage for better output-performance if available
otherwise thoes may be individual problems working for IETF which IETF
should solve for better input-work.

> deliverables, and milestones milestones for such a WG.

I suggest the scope to include all input related to IETF diversity
problems, we need to define all problems and solve them to make IETF
more open for every one. That seems a general/broad scope (I will need
your/ADs help in amending or checking if suitable), but we can start
with main points:

Scope:
++++++
- Identify the devirsity categories that IETF will consider in the
IETF practices.
- Identify all diversity problems in IETF practices, processes and procedures.
- Identifying where does the IETF procedures ignore minority decision
which affects the overall performance of work or affects the
performance of minorities.
- Propose solutions to the identified problems and make thoes
proposals sounded in the IETF practices, procedures and processes.
- Produce RFCs related to diversity issues to make BCPs and add new
procedure items.

Deliverable:
++++++++
Drafts that cover the above scope as identifying the problem and
proposing solutions. Checking all current IETF BCPs/Procedures that
may ignore diversity issues and make updates.

Milestones:
++++++++
Two years work to identify and solve most current problems related to diversity.

> work.
Yes I agree, I don't like discussing in non-WG lists as this list is,
I only started discussing just to get people and myself to see if we
agree to form a WG otherwise I think we will never have a community
solution but only management solutions.

> So, IMHO, the suggestion to form a WG should be accompanied by some

I agree, but we should not forget that we have a General Area that has
no WG for many years which makes me think WHY? what is wrong, and what
is right within the IETF community?

> regardless of their backgrounds and abilities.

I agree, but we SHOULD not forget the IETF background/history, as you
are an AD, so you already have a known background to most of
participation and few may not know that, so we should categorise you
as experienced (number of years in IETF, positions done, ...etc). I
don't want diversity in personal things that humans like/want to hide,
I want personal things that people never can hide like: gender, world
regions residented, work-position, history in IETF, authoring,
participation in such WGs, remote-participant...etc. We are different
in thoes which makes up better diversity.

Regarding *ability*, I think we are all equal, but have different
experience, and together we can be more *able* to produce excellent
Work/RFCs. WGs are more able to do work in IETF than individuals, or
ADs/Chairs/Editors are more able than participants in some duties.
Therefore, I only distinguish *ability* as different
responsibilities/duties/work-positions otherwise we are all equal in
ability.

> participate in this discussion, and what is holding them back?

Usually the ones that they feel that they are different than the
current IETF community, I mean by different as: not like the majority
participants (ex, Men are majority, North America Region Participants,
...etc).

The issue of why they are holded back is never an easy question when
things comes to communicating with humans of different
cultures/organisations/regions. I want to focus on one organisation
which is IETF, which can be complicated because most of its
participants are from different organisations. However, I will answer
your Q that it can be seen as hold back but the reason of such silence
at your end is that they feel they find no channel to communicate with
IETF, so the question should be why IETF is not accessed by such
category or why IETF does not provide access-channels? I suggested a
WG to get a channel open for more diverse IETF.

Best Regards
AB

Posted from Africa Region

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:09:34 +0200

Hi Moonesamy,

On 9/1/13, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Let's say that a person feels discomfort

 A person feels discomfort because no ietf-acknowledgment, or no
management, or no monitoring of bad behavior, or no respect, or no
encouragement, or no Chair, or no process or work, no reasons of
disagreements, no consensus without good-reason, etc. All thoes
actions make humans feel bad, specially when they are minority, they
may interpreat that sign/action negatively. That is why we need to
discuss all individual issues (including minorities and majorities
issues) in an IETF WG, the WG will give chance that the community can
decide with better authority position process than the process of
individual-draft sponsored by ADs.

>  There is not much a person can do

Still IETF has no WG for General Area, that is why persons can not do
much. I want only IETF procedure to include such formal reactions, but
no need for a non-formal group to make random actions, only we need
management to follow/practice procedure, but a WG/group SHOULD make
drafts/IDs into RFCs related to procedure  for minorities in the
community (i.e. related to General Area). Some day minorities can
become majority or make a diverse without any majority category which
makes more welcomings for IETF future.
> working group can use as input for its deliverables.

All WGs produce drafts as inputs, the drafts of Diversity WG can be to
identify general and specific problems related to: Women, Men,
Participation (remote or f2f as some problems were solved in Berlien
Meetings but not documented in RFCs), Regional issues (as problems
discussed for South America Meetings but not documented in draft),
proposals backed by analysis of statistics of performance of IETF
related to regions...etc.

> a group in which each member is chosen because of a distinctive quality.

The group chosen was the DT, but I don't want to choose for the WG,
because ALL are welcomed, if any is interested in the subject then
he/she can participate as IETF procedure says. A WG gives more
authority to the community to make input, but now we have no much
authority only to be individuals sponsored as your input-draft will go
through as per IETF procedure.

> Open and welcoming is a better choice than fully diverse.

Having a list is not much welcoming because there is no formal charter
that focuses the discussion and there is no list Chair, but if we have
a WG we will get more welcoming by IETF and more guidance of
discussion by the WG Chair. Regarding fully diverse, IMHO, it will
take years for that, but we need to start in some point to give chance
to more people to join the focused IETF discussion.

Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:55:58 +0300

Abdussalam, others,

First, I'd like to thank SM for initiating the work on updating RFC 3184. And everyone for contributing on the discussion. Indeed, we seem to have a good discussion going on it. 

And then I'd like to talk about the creation of WGs either to address that update or, more generally, diversity or other Gen area issues. My approach is pragmatic. A topic that seems to get enough attention on the mailing list and is progressing well does not necessarily need a working group. 

In addition, we have used a sizeable portion of the administrative plenary time to talk about the diversity topic, and obviously other things that fall under Gen area. Often some face-to-face time is needed in addition to a mailing list discussion, but it has not been clear to me that in this case we need additional meeting slots. Particularly when the diversity topic is also large - encompassing guideline changes, increased ISOC efforts, mentoring, and other activities that each have a specific set of people that need to be involved and go off to actually do something.

So the answer is that at least for the moment the creation of additional working groups has not been something that I felt was needed. I will of course create Gen area WGs when there is a perceived need to do that.

Jari

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 03:51:40 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>may ignore diversity issues and make updates.

I do not see any mention of deliverables in the above.  I suggest 
identifying the deliverables.

>Two years work to identify and solve most current problems related 

The above do not look like milestones.  I suggest working on the 
deliverables and then working on the milestones.

One of the questions the General Area Director may ask is who is 
interested in doing work in the proposed working group.  I suggest 
thinking about too.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy