Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Guidelines for Conduct - draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 11:32:15 +0200

Hi Arturo,

I agree that we don't need make WG just for one draft, but I am sure
that diversity issues needs a WG to work on many drafts that the
community needs in IETF. There is no doubt that IETF is not
diversified and it represents mostly: Men, and Participants from North
America. I think this SHOULD change by forming a WG into the General
Area that has no WORK in it at ALL.

I still don't know WHY the General Area has no Work in it, if an Area
is open without work then close it, but I think there are many work in
such Area but there is no encouragement for the community to come
together to discuss into WGs.

AB

On 8/31/13, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Abdussalam
>
>     No, we do not need a WG. As I said the process to set up and manage
> a WG just for one draft are over killing.
>
>     A WG for diversity matters may probably be, but even there I am not
> sure.
>
>
> /as
>
> On 8/31/13 11:00 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> I like that All IETF documents get to last call IETF so we already
>> request the broad-community comments, but we need special WG that
>> represent community and welcomes new participants to the WORKS, but
>> the team designed does not have welcoming new memebrs/participants I
>> already tried, the team is assigned by management not by community, so
>> any work the team do is not open enough nor diverse enough. comments
>> below:
>
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 12:08:09 +0200

On 8/31/13, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>     Replying various emails at once.
>
>     I think that the group that commented the draft is diverse, obvious
> it would be better a more diverse group but for a starting point it
> looks good.

I agree also, specially when the author feels that it is time to post
it their after discussing here.

>
>     I consider that this list is good to space to discuss initally the
> draft before going to the general-list. And I do not think that we need
> a WG for it. The bourocracy to set up a WG, to manage, etc. would be
> like an elephant shut gun to kill a mouse.

We need more work related to diversity issues. Therefore, a WG is
important for meetings not only remote works.

>
>     Finally, I think that the General AD (the IETF chair if I am not
> mistaken) is well aware and concerned about  this topic of diversity.

Yes he is but what about the community, I think the community SHOULD
get chance to make decisions as well through WGs related in this
General Area. Now we have only AD related to General area making his
decisions but no defined community in the general area, that seems to
me strange in IETF culture. However, I notice that all our ADs are
doing a great job but I still beleive that they need to know the
community and see feedback through WGs to make better decisions. WGs
also make better decisions when they see the ADs comments/decisions.

AB

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:23:59 -0300

Abdussalam
> Area that has no WORK in it at ALL.

    I think that we agree to disagree

> together to discuss into WGs.

    Mmmm, I think that this list is precisely that group. Not a WG, but
as I said, we do not need a WG.

    But you do not need the General Area director to form the WG, if you
are so convinced that one would work, then you could find people
interested and make a BoF:

http://www.ietf.org/wg/

/as

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:27:32 -0300

Abdussalam,

<snip>
On 9/1/13 7:08 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> me strange in IETF culture. 
    Can you explain? Any specifics?

    As far as I know I haven't seen such thing.

<snip>

/as

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 15:14:28 +0200

>     Can you explain? Any specifics?

I don't understand you question, but I mean that any AD in any Area is
a director that makes decisions, and any WG in any Area also makes
decisions, therefore, in the General Area there is only on side
decisions and lacks the grouping of experts/interested from the
community.

>     As far as I know I haven't seen such thing.

If the General Area is producing some RFCs each year, how don't you
see any sponsoring of such drafts, there is only one power decision,
and there is no WG as far as I see, and still you don't think we need
any WG in general area, but I don't understand your reasons. In my
opinion, the community should decide if the draft is to be
adopted/sponsored in General Area not only an AD, that was my
observation.

 The AD of general area can advise why we don't need WGs in this area,
or advise us why we should have one, because I think this action is
one of directors tasks to help community, if the community is not
interested then I will agree with you that we don't have interest, or
not able to do it now (but not a sign that we don't have a need, the
interest may show up in future).

Overall, I thank you for the discussion, because this subject is
important for future works in IETF General Area.

AB