From nobody Wed Jul 2 05:34:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0A31A0091 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:34:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UI4SMs6emR1v for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x22c.google.com (mail-yk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DDC81A008D for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 142so6476282ykq.3 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:34:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nrEl4L/uXgjWGfYYHYzh6fK5rpjFZI8/dco/sRsbR5o=; b=ecC+2R6g6UK0MKR9rmybfYaPipnGZ9hqTlx7PqOTzu0AtL9idd8ZTsAyByxRvVNyb1 Ssoc7AgPVlzpKKUL9AyMr79DjlUh/+P6IipC0GVJCrQHstl2vH+Ups2HKR5SbG+wk3aH UWTwxNifHKIRQ1ZEbXk1UavMRLQKfG6RlJcV+D+3gYV/PjieTDuihxGow9eBFokiOwP6 s9EdYIbpRPSU5imMBS0iGMfb7xW3oVZqEE9ZHXSvPlZSTwL2RlnadsCe8Hlukjm5b0RC eN5Vv7y16JJa/AqKe+Rgp10OQuo1ZlxSbHsk2+fZLlXIKzVwYyXfWcUFTlxnS9uHWHmv w7Cg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.144.137 with SMTP id n9mr77218681yhj.37.1404304455822; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.194.19 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:34:15 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "l.wood@surrey.ac.uk" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303dd74a3ef1e504fd351ca5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/zSZwBpB8VGNOj5vE0yVaZ5VLo_Q Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: [Diversity] Do we need flexible parser or sensitive writers X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:34:19 -0000 --20cf303dd74a3ef1e504fd351ca5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding my discussion input in IETF routing area. I don't know what is difficult for your parse in my message. If you don't explained it I will never know if the problem is in my end or your end. Please note that I do many informal writing and many english native speakers understand my writing and can parse it. I think the discussion-problem in IETF is that some participants use their native language to discourage others, so when some participants find a non-English speaker making a point/change/contribution and they disagree with that input they just make a discourage input out of subject by using the language issue to discourage the point/participant and change the discussion to English language instead of IETF issues. So I will bring this issue here to this list if you like to discuss language and non-native speakers. I have discussed for long hours with an IETF mentor, I was informed my writing is ok, and that there are sensitive English readers. I attended one IETF meeting, and it seems like most participants have flexible parsers and few are not. My conclusion of parsers of English is that some people have to know that the majority of English speakers in the world are not native speakers any more (especially for informal talks/writes). So IMHO the majority can parse my message and only few cannot, because those few still did not adapt to the change in writings in the world's lists of discussions. IETF should adapt and be flexible with language issues. Hopefully, We all are trying our best to be flexible and adapt to others in IETF to make it more diverse even in its parsing. AB On Tuesday, July 1, 2014, wrote: > your long is also difficult to parse. > ------------------------------ > *From:* routing-discussion > on > behalf of Abdussalam Baryun > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:32:00 PM > *To:* Joel M. Halpern > *Cc:* adrian@olddog.co.uk > ; > routing-discussion@ietf.org > > *Subject:* Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area > organization > > Hi Joel, > (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short > is difficult to parse) > > I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I > wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused. However, = I > don't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, but also confused by th= is > WG's purpose and its general functions. The WG functions should be very > clearly related to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community > interested otherwise this WG will become weak even if some > participants/ADs want it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs a= re > all engineering WGs. > > One question point is: Are all the functions in the > Dispatcher WG administrative or planning or engineering? If it is not > engineering then it should not belong to Routing Area as WG-function, but > it can be routing-area-list otherwise General Area WG. If we like dispatc= h > for new ideas related to area or any of its WGs then one focused area-lis= t > is enough. I prefer we use this routing-discussion list to discuss new > ideas and new functions and new future WG issues (I thought this list was > for the plannings and new ideas, seems others are working without me > aware). > > For example, if dispatcher WG function can open/recommend new small > WGs within the area, then it may be able to re-organise the area without > this routing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest the charter o= f > this WG should be very specific with clear engineering functions that > do not conflict with known discussion-channels, and they can do > only specific new-idea discussions within WG channels. Furthermore, other > idea discussion and new WG are for routing-discussion list and Area > meetings. > > Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the > planning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this > routing-discussion list. > > AB > > On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> Following the lead of RAI< we could call it Routing Dispatcher instead o= f >> RTGWG, if that would help folks understand it better. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: >> >>> Rob, >>> >>> The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the >>> rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the >>> "Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more like >>> throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of >>> them stick together. ;-) >>> I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we >>> could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not >>> necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working >>> Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-nam= e >>> acronym, I guess. ;-) >>> >>> One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wonderin= g >>> if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for >>> "...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas=E2=80=A6". = Isn't the >>> introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working >>> groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed >>> that we all need to be aware of? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Stan >> >> --20cf303dd74a3ef1e504fd351ca5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding my discussion input in IETF routing area.=C2=A0I don't know w= hat is=C2=A0difficult for your parse in my message. If you don't explai= ned it I will never know if the problem is in my end or your end. Please no= te that I do many informal=C2=A0writing and many english native speakers un= derstand my writing and can parse it.=C2=A0

I think the discussion-problem in IETF is that some=C2=A0par= ticipants use their native language to discourage others, so=C2=A0when some= =C2=A0participants find=C2=A0a non-English speaker making a point/change/co= ntribution and they disagree with that input they just make a=C2=A0discoura= ge input out of subject=C2=A0by using the language issue to discourage the = point/participant=C2=A0and change the discussion to English language instea= d of IETF issues. So I will bring this issue here to this list if you like = to discuss language and non-native speakers.=C2=A0

I have discussed for long hours with an IETF=C2=A0mento= r, I was informed my writing is ok, and=C2=A0that there are sensitive Engli= sh=C2=A0readers. I=C2=A0attended one IETF meeting, and it seems like most p= articipants have flexible parsers and few are not. My=C2=A0conclusion of pa= rsers=C2=A0of English is that some people have to know that the majority of= English speakers in the world are not native speakers any more (especially= for informal talks/writes).=C2=A0So IMHO=C2=A0the majority can parse my me= ssage and only few cannot, because those few=C2=A0still did not adapt to th= e change in writings in the world's lists of discussions. IETF should a= dapt and be flexible with language issues.=C2=A0

Hopefully,=C2=A0We all are trying our best to be flexib= le and adapt to others in IETF to make it more diverse even in its parsing.= =C2=A0

AB

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014, wrote= :
your long is also difficult to parse.
From: routing-discussion <routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf o= f Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmai= l.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:32:00 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organi= zation
=C2=A0
Hi Joel,
(Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short is= =C2=A0difficult to parse)

I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue,=C2= =A0but I wanted=C2=A0to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refuse= d.=C2=A0However,=C2=A0I don't think my confusion was only the name rtgw= g,=C2=A0but also confused by=C2=A0this WG's purpose and its=C2=A0genera= l=C2=A0functions. The WG=C2=A0functions should be very clearly related to Routing=C2=A0and t= his=C2=A0WG needs to=C2=A0get all routing-community interested otherwise th= is WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs=C2=A0want it to contin= ue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering WGs.=C2=A0

One question point is:=C2=A0Are all=C2=A0the functions in the Dispatch= er=C2=A0WG=C2=A0administrative or planning or=C2=A0engineering= ? If it is not engineering then it should not belong to Routing Area as WG-= function, but it can be=C2=A0routing-area-list otherwise=C2=A0General Area WG.=C2=A0If we like dispatch for new=C2=A0ideas related to area or an= y of its WGs then=C2=A0one focused area-list is enough.=C2=A0I prefer we us= e this routing-discussion list=C2=A0to discuss new ideas and new functions = and new future=C2=A0WG issues (I thought this list was for the plannings and new ideas, seems others are working without me aware).=C2=A0=

For example, if=C2=A0dispatcher WG function=C2=A0can open/recommend=C2= =A0new small WGs=C2=A0within the area, then it may be able to re-organise t= he area without this routing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest= =C2=A0the charter of this WG should be very specific with clear engineering=C2=A0functions=C2=A0that do=C2=A0not conflict with known= discussion-channels, and they=C2=A0can do only=C2=A0specific new-idea disc= ussions within WG channels. Furthermore,=C2=A0other idea discussion and new= WG are for=C2=A0routing-discussion list=C2=A0and Area meetings.=C2=A0

Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the p= lanning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this routing-disc= ussion list.=C2=A0

AB

On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Following the lead of RAI< we could call it Routing Dispatcher instead o= f RTGWG, if that would help folks understand it better.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
Rob,

The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the=
rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the
"Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more lik= e
throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of
them stick together. ;-)
I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we=
could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not<= br> necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-name acronym, I guess. ;-)

One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wondering if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for
"...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas=E2=80=A6&q= uot;. Isn't the
introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working
groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed
that we all need to be aware of?

Regards,
Stan
--20cf303dd74a3ef1e504fd351ca5-- From nobody Thu Jul 3 13:58:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF191B2A1F for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOVhKYy37QLE for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gds.best.vwh.net (gds.best.vwh.net [192.220.66.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A638D1B2A30 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 33555 invoked by uid 17031); 3 Jul 2014 20:58:25 -0000 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:58:25 +0000 From: Greg Skinner To: Abdussalam Baryun Message-ID: <20140703205825.A19505@gds.best.vwh.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from abdussalambaryun@gmail.com on Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:34:15PM +0100 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/ceZTNFpYYuZdMRZt_-o1ce-at3Q Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "l.wood@surrey.ac.uk" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Do we need flexible parser or sensitive writers X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 20:58:27 -0000 This is just an observation with no disrespect intended to anyone. I find reading technical material more difficult than, say, recreational reading, such as novels. Having to parse (in the sense AB is using this word) technical material adds to the difficulty. I imagine that would be difficult in any language. (On occasion, I have read some technical material in languages other than English, and have appreciated when "textbook", non-colloquial language was used.) I have seen some discussion on this general issue, particularly with regards to the extra burden it places on the RFC Editor for advancing drafts, RFCs, etc. I have wondered if there is a way to incentivize the volunteer effort of reviewing, to relieve the burden on the RFC Editor. For example, people can earn points on Chegg for providing assistance that are redeemable for gift cards. However, perhaps this would disrupt the community volunteer spirit. --gregbo On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 01:34:15PM +0100, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Regarding my discussion input in IETF routing area. I don't know what > is difficult for your parse in my message. If you don't explained it I will > never know if the problem is in my end or your end. Please note that I do > many informal writing and many english native speakers understand my > writing and can parse it. > > I think the discussion-problem in IETF is that some participants use their > native language to discourage others, so when some participants find a > non-English speaker making a point/change/contribution and they disagree > with that input they just make a discourage input out of subject by using > the language issue to discourage the point/participant and change the > discussion to English language instead of IETF issues. So I will bring this > issue here to this list if you like to discuss language and non-native > speakers. > > I have discussed for long hours with an IETF mentor, I was informed my > writing is ok, and that there are sensitive English readers. I attended one > IETF meeting, and it seems like most participants have flexible parsers and > few are not. My conclusion of parsers of English is that some people have > to know that the majority of English speakers in the world are not native > speakers any more (especially for informal talks/writes). So IMHO the > majority can parse my message and only few cannot, because those few still > did not adapt to the change in writings in the world's lists of > discussions. IETF should adapt and be flexible with language issues. > > Hopefully, We all are trying our best to be flexible and adapt to others in > IETF to make it more diverse even in its parsing. > > AB > > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014, wrote: > > > your long is also difficult to parse. > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* routing-discussion > > on > > behalf of Abdussalam Baryun > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:32:00 PM > > *To:* Joel M. Halpern > > *Cc:* adrian@olddog.co.uk > > ; > > routing-discussion@ietf.org > > > > *Subject:* Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area > > organization > > > > Hi Joel, > > (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short > > is difficult to parse) > > > > I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I > > wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused. However, I > > don't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, but also confused by this > > WG's purpose and its general functions. The WG functions should be very > > clearly related to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community > > interested otherwise this WG will become weak even if some > > participants/ADs want it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are > > all engineering WGs. > > > > One question point is: Are all the functions in the > > Dispatcher WG administrative or planning or engineering? If it is not > > engineering then it should not belong to Routing Area as WG-function, but > > it can be routing-area-list otherwise General Area WG. If we like dispatch > > for new ideas related to area or any of its WGs then one focused area-list > > is enough. I prefer we use this routing-discussion list to discuss new > > ideas and new functions and new future WG issues (I thought this list was > > for the plannings and new ideas, seems others are working without me > > aware). > > > > For example, if dispatcher WG function can open/recommend new small > > WGs within the area, then it may be able to re-organise the area without > > this routing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest the charter of > > this WG should be very specific with clear engineering functions that > > do not conflict with known discussion-channels, and they can do > > only specific new-idea discussions within WG channels. Furthermore, other > > idea discussion and new WG are for routing-discussion list and Area > > meetings. > > > > Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the > > planning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this > > routing-discussion list. > > > > AB > > > > [...] From nobody Sat Jul 26 23:57:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481EC1A00AF for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dhp-e0aBdTHB for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com (mail-yh0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 085251A00AE for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f10so4023661yha.6 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:57:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JGJZ9hQ8DjofQ6CLGvXXivFhpMGVfI6v3zLLu2u30aE=; b=ltyAksL+Hwsv5x2WUh099/3Mpw80iFMlLN5W/0+EdiEGhC/0CrhEO0hqUAZEHEtb87 JVBD5m2urDtxaMp3kuhVeDg5NQFtsFGf9OZsRs95pOlDDXK4FIyUw0DvA52J6qmSM46i FTLbgooS55DNz8+8EI68cwipNnxzi8Uf47ybsjZFC2QRZvLtlVjOv134Hgn3JZBXzHh3 oKtVEvKmh8qvyEIOA4pgw8jWxVfglhQ0VfHw7Yh8VeOig+iQrQuyY5KNs3Jra3FdlUn3 GsoQKPx+DIPtlBuqn9jOg0VuOL8hbcz0bDrdQx+DnGzBuUq/LCGj7xQGolBHDLmmjSuo 78fQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.155.200 with SMTP id j48mr39959356yhk.40.1406444243236; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.44.216 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:57:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "diversity@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303b3f8d83e3ab04ff275166 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/vy2MK3hepJMLCVfIyVX784CLBDk Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:57:25 -0000 --20cf303b3f8d83e3ab04ff275166 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring? However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised to support diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the real world community. AB --20cf303b3f8d83e3ab04ff275166 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In IETF with its=C2=A0remote participation main work process,=C2=A0it is ve= ry easy to get ignored/not-respond-to=C2=A0by WG chairs or WG editor=C2=A0s= pecially if you are=C2=A0newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc.=C2= =A0Is the=C2=A0IETF owned by industry or=C2=A0companies? Or do chairs and e= ditors need training/mentoring?

However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-respons= e=C2=A0without a=C2=A0respond on the WG list,=C2=A0because they may have re= asons or they=C2=A0may need help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve thi= s issue if it is organised=C2=A0to support=C2=A0diversity and serious to=C2= =A0involve more participants from all the real world=C2=A0community.=C2=A0<= br>

AB
--20cf303b3f8d83e3ab04ff275166-- From nobody Sun Jul 27 03:02:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8D11A0146 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V5YdNyM03fS0 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80ED61A0143 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6RA2WDb003585; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:02:32 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6RA2R9Z003557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:02:28 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:02:31 +0100 Message-ID: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0805_01CFA98A.45C58FB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQMmEalehxWr8hX67W96e3bx+GsWwJkG1TWQ Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20842.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.898-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--12.898-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO2I0KPyMNrNUlu4M/xm4KZekrlppQf2RBWPiGGmdG+3Yk+z yRCAu91i0hnak6kw+QVWnMkIP7wJ/mTCzF7UO28xJhFEQZiq2ZSL5j5DDdPHP8o/pjLBvlo2xX7 kdqlj/8upsNvC8kup03ikJ5HzxTa09cyCJrYj5tUIVoCLGbl5T0Crr/LkAQ46QYnjnWVyDD+6PD 0Fdea44NjQLNmiK6Gil6Ts8bnt9r/C7iKj8w2ZYOh7ldQVCWDzndxf4OzpbpV/sUNganJerSDm5 U+PH9HPH4QsT3A7/fI7Ce5sufx1ClkjerhrCeCpA9lly13c/gEJDfFL7Mvp7TpQIa6WiotmV3P5 5wQQmAGmsl04eb7wB1kiJOTccK1+bx+xmQHMNIN2IsPC9Z62GO7sedMuEdnYIFBEE5CFomK7oc5 +QkIZgZv3lsrRDjDf8UcA4gjk1DffKsk6wtpGef9Ci025qU0xOUgDgpLqlbfF7duWDXiFEuouUH LjQlGo/b8+IFfa2y/D5EAPa5XOVyxZ6YTCyFalEu5bhrerZYYLce5ZyDJAJoPVbmzb4R1i32kL/ xfYbMC808FpCn4nppmmMO+0upiO5s2E/HDpG1m8coKUcaOOvbuSWRg03e4+EcdWUGOF7fJYqgMp Oy5G5F1rsnfiPBjs3PUlwsBqhp+sT6Dr98/byQI6GksNBIxVBdebOqawiLvSauv9hRXQJBIRdtA 0aLM2NtrqBJtuOX5BVgr5vOsPONLF6Y0L7R/Qd7yMwO18iIi1X9aaML89nCA6eO+NDmAxJZ3D0z KPh7H10yQNuo1OJZfucML7iAp6c1BeS/J6aN+eAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1kTfEkyaZdy1VfZrX 9mxWIsI9y7zTKk9mQ9j8KfEiBesRpIm+TO6Qv/G8wurizLYRg3Pmzc7nRj0GZettejlMQjuiomK UHc7ogTBaf+dgETZEG9am8xIcw== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/VbbnMALoiUutSasotHY_zmDcLJU Subject: Re: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:02:39 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0805_01CFA98A.45C58FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Abdussalam, =20 Your claims are significant and need to be investigated. But it is hard = to work through them without concrete evidence, yet it may also be hard = to get such material without someone doing some analysis. We may have to = fall back on anecdotal evidence, and in doing so we have to be careful = to separate three things: - Real cases of remote participants being ignored - Issues with lack of understanding of IETF process - False perception of being ignored=20 =20 Fundamentally, if someone feels that they are being ignored the = responsibility is shared. The community has a duty to not ignore; the = chairs and document editors have a duty to make sure all issues are = captured; and individuals (the ignored or the witnesses) have a duty to = flag specific incidents. =20 The first case is, of course, the most important. It can arise for many = reasons, and we continue to attempt to train the working group chairs to = help them address some of these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to = apply here, and chair training will take time. Most recently, the chairs = had a session in Toronto to discuss ways of handling language and = cultural issues, while the Routing ADs have just put in place a program = of training sessions for the chairs in the Routing Area. We would, of = course, welcome insight about which issues need special attention in = training, but a shopping list only has limited value: we may need more = structured help developing topics and material for training. =20 The second case is a learning process. We can help by making material = available to newcomers, by being available as chairs, AD, and long-time = IETFers, and through the newly established mentors program. But lack of = understanding of IETF process and the normal mode of operation of the = IETF can lead to the third case... =20 It is important to understand how to make effective contributions to the = IETF and how some contributions will not get a response because they are = essentially empty of constructive input. Thus, if someone makes a = comment like "You should write more about foo" then the editor may agree = or disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has to expand on the issues = that need to be covered and to write the text. It is far more = constructive to break down the topic that needs to be addressed, to = explain why it needs to be covered, and to actually supply text. "Repeat = offenders" who demand that other people do work will find that their = comments start to be ignored to the point that even if they go on to = make a reasonable and helpful contribution no-one is reading their email = any more. That's a bad situation that we all have to work to improve. =20 Let's take your email on this thread as a direct example. You have = raised some concerns via an assertion that you have not substantiated = with verifiable facts or even anecdote. You have asked two questions = that many feel are self-evident and don't need an answer. You end by = saying "IETF should..." and you may be right, but you are not = contributing to the solution. What are the detailed actions you would = like to see? How can those actions be achieved? Who will contribute the = work? =20 This is a very important topic, but I fear your email does nothing to = further the state of the art. Many of us are working hard (in our spare = time, of course) to make it easier to integrate newcomers and remote = participants into the IETF. There are many projects running, some of = them in their early stages. We could do more, I am sure. Please give us = some concrete and constructive help. =20 Adrian =20 =20 From: diversity [mailto:diversity-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Abdussalam Baryun Sent: 27 July 2014 07:57 To: diversity@ietf.org Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors =20 In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy = to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you = are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by = industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring? =20 However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a = respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need = help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is = organised to support diversity and serious to involve more participants = from all the real world community.=20 =20 AB ------=_NextPart_000_0805_01CFA98A.45C58FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Abdussalam,

 

Your claims are significant = and need to be investigated. But it is hard to work through them without = concrete evidence, yet it may also be hard to get such material without = someone doing some analysis. We may have to fall back on anecdotal = evidence, and in doing so we have to be careful to separate three = things:

- Real cases of remote = participants being ignored

- Issues with lack of = understanding of IETF process

- False perception of being = ignored

 

Fundamentally, if someone = feels that they are being ignored the responsibility is shared. The = community has a duty to not ignore; the chairs and document editors have = a duty to make sure all issues are captured; and individuals (the = ignored or the witnesses) have a duty to flag specific = incidents.

 

The first case is, of course, = the most important. It can arise for many reasons, and we continue to = attempt to train the working group chairs to help them address some of = these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to apply here, and chair = training will take time. Most recently, the chairs had a session in = Toronto to discuss ways of handling language and cultural issues, while = the Routing ADs have just put in place a program of training sessions = for the chairs in the Routing Area. We would, of course, welcome insight = about which issues need special attention in training, but a shopping = list only has limited value: we may need more structured help developing = topics and material for training.

 

The second case is a learning = process. We can help by making material available to newcomers, by being = available as chairs, AD, and long-time IETFers, and through the newly = established mentors program. But lack of understanding of IETF process = and the normal mode of operation of the IETF can lead to the third = case...

 

It is important to understand = how to make effective contributions to the IETF and how some = contributions will not get a response because they are essentially empty = of constructive input. Thus, if someone makes a comment like "You = should write more about foo" then the editor may agree or disagree, = but it is clear that *someone* has to expand on the issues that need to = be covered and to write the text. It is far more constructive to break = down the topic that needs to be addressed, to explain why it needs to be = covered, and to actually supply text. "Repeat offenders" who = demand that other people do work will find that their comments start to = be ignored to the point that even if they go on to make a reasonable and = helpful contribution no-one is reading their email any more. That's a = bad situation that we all have to work to = improve.

 

Let's take your email on this = thread as a direct example. You have raised some concerns via an = assertion that you have not substantiated with verifiable facts or even = anecdote. You have asked two questions that many feel are self-evident = and don't need an answer. You end by saying "IETF should..." = and you may be right, but you are not contributing to the solution. What = are the detailed actions you would like to see? How can those actions be = achieved? Who will contribute the work?

 

This is a very important = topic, but I fear your email does nothing to further the state of the = art. Many of us are working hard (in our spare time, of course) to make = it easier to integrate newcomers and remote participants into the IETF. = There are many projects running, some of them in their early stages. We = could do more, I am sure. Please give us some concrete and constructive = help.

 

Adrian

 

 

From: diversity = [mailto:diversity-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam = Baryun
Sent: 27 July 2014 07:57
To: = diversity@ietf.org
Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs = or WG editors

 

In IETF with = its remote participation main work process, it is very easy to = get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially = if you are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is = the IETF owned by industry or companies? Or do chairs and = editors need training/mentoring?

 

However, it is not correct to let that = ignorance/non-response without a respond on the WG = list, because they may have reasons or they may need = help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is = organised to support diversity and serious to involve = more participants from all the real = world community. 

 

AB

------=_NextPart_000_0805_01CFA98A.45C58FB0-- From nobody Sun Jul 27 03:07:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FE11A014A for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:07:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wk-5GVuYVDx9 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03D41A0146 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.234.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6RA6luq008481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:06:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406455619; x=1406542019; bh=Cpn5saAWMDWhmrCz8rRFIk20X79rOG67g+2T/VFRQSo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kVDWvfOg0dYoV13vbYSul56m4rljEgzgLtW149Lb3Ja/mUhVS1XVPbEnYpvlxFGJW Ku3T52uJj7woXbUzFtwluULBIKK65TddeVkwH9zSlv/A5/hneMdhdWSYjHnlccvUQw myPWU2nheiapwAFK5nw5K4kw5UZ/7b11nQpB7dkc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406455619; x=1406542019; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Cpn5saAWMDWhmrCz8rRFIk20X79rOG67g+2T/VFRQSo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=xxdvF8PIX7nqaP57uwEQwF7Zq4r2IUEUfYLxRiqBFqxXLfRfhf6lUiI7fJM00B06y 1pp7K0uYUuxB1SGFL+TtJpBuIlTrkDwSCNk7nYpZrQse/2Y34Mhxb3Cb2KD7O3SqSM F/KPi5gKYx2gYFL2w45dLmIjR0REkbVhCK7cgRD8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727003342.0c8f9458@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 02:02:49 -0700 To: Abdussalam Baryun , diversity@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/VB_lwXpGNLlHQHvO4-BHkupcjNo Subject: Re: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:07:05 -0000 Hi Abdussalam, At 23:57 26-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very >easy to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor >specially if you are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. >Is the IETF owned by industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors >need training/mentoring? I leave it to other persons to answer the question about whether the IETF is owned by industry. I don't know whether chairs or editors need training. >However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response >without a respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or >they may need help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue >if it is organised to support diversity and serious to involve more >participants from all the real world community. Let's assume that I do not like a person. I can ignore the question which the person asked if I know that the person cannot or will not do anything about it. Please note that I do not think that it is a good idea to do that. It is up to the person to ensure that he or she is not ignored. What would you do if you are ignored? In case it is not obvious, I'll mention that I do a lot of research before asking a question or commenting about an issue (e.g. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg07832.html ). Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Sun Jul 27 06:22:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF551A01BD for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWYi6-kNz7Ap for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22d.google.com (mail-yh0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 548621A0141 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 29so4163573yhl.4 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:22:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1Mx1cvll8PYiiUsMlkbDbm5Y9GNxmMpAKztDRqcGu6I=; b=xjN6SVXpWmk+9wG+ki8RSza5RqmaXKpZk//WLCZ48tc9VnvsK+tNmlltUs05fDi4at l0aexkQxYgZddLi817wYrNVqRlxzrNG0uvoiUhLW14B18sUx+C/7bXBnB+pcANC/deez nfcmXYIyC8QO03DVV9aIdRcXiDcMXZcS29YnbeWXQhMGDjD5j3B0ItBy7Mm1wLsQcbht nXfn4O9BCgczkSe7d8eKZYX3d3+pPQc0jCYMl3tREo+HFnHV/SXn3n2y4CRxyoKp9iyC vePZDFSPlAIRxqU0VS6nwb/ngoIjhwEI+dQBMHpNa9AtyoZzahvqdRpMFrCM1G62DnYP V40A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.170.38 with SMTP id o26mr1983572yhl.182.1406467346556; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.44.216 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:22:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727003342.0c8f9458@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727003342.0c8f9458@resistor.net> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:22:26 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf302d4e2a94730204ff2cb21d Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/c9YWbNp3neFuqRoUFk6xjZOD1_Q Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:22:29 -0000 --20cf302d4e2a94730204ff2cb21d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Moonesamy, Comments below, On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > At 23:57 26-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >> In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy >> to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you >> are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by >> industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring? >> > > I leave it to other persons to answer the question about whether the IETF > is owned by industry. I don't know whether chairs or editors need training. They need training by IETF because some WGs are with low quality in terms of constructive discussions. > > However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a >> respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need >> help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised >> to support diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the >> real world community. >> > > Let's assume that I do not like a person. I can ignore the question which > the person asked if I know that the person cannot or will not do anything > about it. Please note that I do not think that it is a good idea to do > that. It is up to the person to ensure that he or she is not ignored. > It is not about me or you, it is about an IETF hat or power. How can an WG chair/editor use their hat against the IETF best process? It is responsibility of IETF to stop ignorance of IETF position-holders. > What would you do if you are ignored? For me I was ignored many times and want to solve the issue of what to do diversely so I am now discussing it her with the diverse-community and not with Those position holders. > In case it is not obvious, I'll mention that I do a lot of research before > asking a question or commenting about an issue (e.g. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg07832.html ). That is good for IETF but we need WG chair/editors to be like you before asking the community to adopt or WGLC (searching for all community feedback and responding). AB --20cf302d4e2a94730204ff2cb21d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Moonesamy,

Comments below,

On Sunday, July 27,= 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,=
At 23:57 26-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy to= get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you are = newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by indust= ry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring?

I leave it to other persons to answer the question about whether the IETF i= s owned by industry. =C2=A0I don't know whether chairs or editors need = training.

They need training by IETF=C2=A0b= ecause some WGs=C2=A0are with low quality in terms of constructive=C2=A0dis= cussions.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a res= pond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need help/ad= vise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised to suppo= rt diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the real wor= ld community.

Let's assume that I do not like a person. =C2=A0I can ignore the questi= on which the person asked if I know that the person cannot or will not do a= nything about it. =C2=A0Please note that I do not think that it is a good i= dea to do that. =C2=A0It is up to the person to ensure that he or she is no= t ignored. =C2=A0
=C2=A0
It is not= about me or you, it is about an IETF hat or power. How can an WG chair/edi= tor use their hat=C2=A0against the IETF=C2=A0best process? It is responsibi= lity of IETF to stop ignorance of IETF=C2=A0position-holders.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
What would you do if = you are ignored?

For=C2=A0me=C2=A0I was ign= ored many times and=C2=A0want to solve the issue of what to do diversely=C2= =A0so I am now discussing it her with the diverse-community and not with Th= ose position holders.=C2=A0


In case it is not obvious, I'll mention that I do a lot of research bef= ore asking a question or commenting about an issue (e.g. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/= msg07832.html ).=C2=A0

That is goo= d for IETF but we need WG chair/editors to be like you before asking the co= mmunity to adopt or WGLC (searching for all community=C2=A0feedback and res= ponding).=C2=A0

AB

=C2=A0
--20cf302d4e2a94730204ff2cb21d-- From nobody Sun Jul 27 06:39:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20281A01EB for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:39:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9SAjz75kIICt for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x22c.google.com (mail-yk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BEDC1A01E8 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 10so4052292ykt.17 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Mvw0lNOD03YMwwpoJbP5V67RdJXR37q5iI4FQkPI3VY=; b=TQ6l5A4t/epS+z2zSyQHi86pOS8SwVHezaqMNQIYLx9hQFhalDSJCwihE2jSsNvEFL Er/XYx/POUwh0E2G6VEH/6oNdhtaEadgDXeR8H7eJedS/pM+l45NX1LlkOnlCL08jfA4 +pKPXvJuruloGXabtDa1KR2LzMdOIrn/7H3Dru8XPD0QTRGfHRD+VTBBUIm0fbsuMSz5 clhhVHhZTyDkgB9FGtAz2CEZkkS2619qT2r+JDvpJsXtH7sqOraTE2aE6Wki1x9fMR/i oWF4510XLP7dBVhC0X9xXJeZFMYl2mRR4eM6lZ9TC4rH5PSDLvAQs9W8fdcAUMUaIl8l QzbA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.127.81 with SMTP id c57mr3585175yhi.118.1406468344237; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.44.216 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:39:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301af57f0bd44504ff2ceefc Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/F0AhauAtoBsiuF_ZqDE0pBkot50 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:39:09 -0000 --20cf301af57f0bd44504ff2ceefc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Adrian, I agree that I did not go into details, because it was not a complaint, I done that way but IESG supported IETF-positions, but if the message is right the recommendation is good for new comers, and diversity supporters. IMHO the message starts a discussion topic and does not claim solving any thing, because we need to discuss/define the problem (some may think it does not exist, and some think it does). On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Abdussalam, > > > > Your claims are significant and need to be investigated. > > Agree, but I am discussing it with you and with the community so I don't ignore the observations. > But it is hard to work through them without concrete evidence, yet it may > also be hard to get such material without someone doing some analysis. We > may have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, and in doing so we have to be > careful to separate three things: > > - Real cases of remote participants being ignored > > - Issues with lack of understanding of IETF process > > - False perception of being ignored > > Agree, there may be other additional points. > > > Fundamentally, if someone feels that they are being ignored the > responsibility is shared. The community has a duty to not ignore; the > chairs and document editors have a duty to make sure all issues are > captured; and individuals (the ignored or the witnesses) have a duty to > flag specific incidents. > > That is why the message recommends that a note should be posted to WG list if the ignorance happens, so if some one feels ignored she/he must post feedback without double ignore. > The first case is, of course, the most important. It can arise for many > reasons, and we continue to attempt to train the working group chairs to > help them address some of these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to > apply here, and chair training will take time. Most recently, the chairs > had a session in Toronto to discuss ways of handling language and cultural > issues, while the Routing ADs have just put in place a program of training > sessions for the chairs in the Routing Area. We would, of course, welcome > insight about which issues need special attention in training, but a > shopping list only has limited value: we may need more structured help > developing topics and material for training. > > Yes, I see efforts of training and think a procedure update draft for remote chairing/editing is important for all participants to consider. However, it should be discussed/solved openly by all diverse community (I don't see much remote discussions on that by the diverse community). > > > The second case is a learning process. We can help by making material > available to newcomers, by being available as chairs, AD, and long-time > IETFers, and through the newly established mentors program. But lack of > understanding of IETF process and the normal mode of operation of the IETF > can lead to the third case... > > If we agree that ignoring/feeling-ignored is wrong in all IETF responsibilities, then we can stop it at both sides the chair and the participant sides by defining its full reasons. > > > It is important to understand how to make effective contributions to the > IETF and how some contributions will not get a response because they are > essentially empty of constructive input. Thus, if someone makes a comment > like "You should write more about foo" then the editor may agree or > disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has to expand on the issues that > need to be covered and to write the text. It is far more constructive to > break down the topic that needs to be addressed, to explain why it needs to > be covered, and to actually supply text. "Repeat offenders" who demand that > other people do work will find that their comments start to be ignored to > the point that even if they go on to make a reasonable and helpful > contribution no-one is reading their email any more. That's a bad situation > that we all have to work to improve. > > Who decides constructive? It is the community or the WG but not the WG chair/editor. If I am a chair/editor I have to respond to make the IETF process work better. A WG list is created to discuss not to examen constructive inputs, in organisations the staff discuss without ignoring inputs, so I only put the compulsory respond on chair/editor, if they want to fulfil their job. > > > Let's take your email on this thread as a direct example. You have raised > some concerns via an assertion that you have not substantiated with > verifiable facts or even anecdote. You have asked two questions that many > feel are self-evident and don't need an answer. You end by saying "IETF > should..." and you may be right, but you are not contributing to the > solution. What are the detailed actions you would like to see? How can > those actions be achieved? Who will contribute the work? > > This list participants and Me will discuss the issue that is why it was posted. It is still under discovery or process for future work. However, it is an observation and point of view as starting to define a problem for discussions. Your questions are important, but needs the list participants/viewers/DT to not ignore answering them. > > > This is a very important topic, but I fear your email does nothing to > further the state of the art. > > IMHO the signal in the right channel is an excellent start, the signal is just a signal for future communication and solutions. > Many of us are working hard (in our spare time, of course) to make it > easier to integrate newcomers and remote participants into the IETF. There > are many projects running, some of them in their early stages. We could do > more, I am sure. Please give us some concrete and constructive help. > > I want to know those projects, are they posted her in this list, why ietfers not discussed on this list (do they ignore or hide from community interfere). This list is not bussy (another observation). Some efforts are not constructive if the work is private or done in DT without reporting to the IETF community. I need help and you/draft-editors need help, so let us discuss/share that remotely on a list but without working alone/privately for any project related to diversity. Some may say who am I to be equal to IETF real contributors (ADs, Chairs, WG editors, etc), they even can say to me that you have no RFC so please make one first before trying to change the process (I am against that response theory or ignorance behavior). Thanks for your advise and help. AB > > > Adrian > > > > > > *From:* diversity [mailto:diversity-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Abdussalam > Baryun > *Sent:* 27 July 2014 07:57 > *To:* diversity@ietf.org > *Subject:* [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors > > > > In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy > to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you > are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by > industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring? > > > > However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without > a respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need > help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is > organised to support diversity and serious to involve more participants > from all the real world community. > > > > AB > --20cf301af57f0bd44504ff2ceefc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Adrian,

I agree that I did not go into details, becau= se it was not a complaint, I done that way but IESG supported IETF-position= s,=C2=A0but if the message is right the recommendation is good for new come= rs, and=C2=A0diversity supporters. IMHO the=C2=A0message starts a discussio= n topic and does not claim=C2=A0solving any thing,=C2=A0because we need to = discuss/define the problem (some may think it does not exist, and some thin= k it=C2=A0does).=C2=A0

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Abdussalam,=

=C2=A0<= u>

Your claims are significa= nt and need to be investigated.=C2=A0

Agree, but I am discussing it with you and wi= th the community so I don't ignore the=C2=A0observations.=C2=A0

But it is hard to work through them without = concrete evidence, yet it may also be hard to get such material without som= eone doing some analysis. We may have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, a= nd in doing so we have to be careful to separate three things:

- Real cases of remote pa= rticipants being ignored

- Issues with lack of understanding of IETF process=

- False perception of bei= ng ignored

=
Agree, there may be other additional=C2=A0points.=C2=A0

=C2=A0<= /span>

Fundamentally, if someone= feels that they are being ignored the responsibility is shared. The commun= ity has a duty to not ignore; the chairs and document editors have a duty t= o make sure all issues are captured; and individuals (the ignored or the wi= tnesses) have a duty to flag specific incidents.

That is why the me= ssage recommends that a note should be posted to WG list if the ignorance h= appens, so if some one feels ignored she/he must post feedback without doub= le ignore.=C2=A0

The first case is, of cou= rse, the most important. It can arise for many reasons, and we continue to = attempt to train the working group chairs to help them address some of thes= e reasons. Obviously there is no magic to apply here, and chair training wi= ll take time. Most recently, the chairs had a session in Toronto to discuss= ways of handling language and cultural issues, while the Routing ADs have = just put in place a program of training sessions for the chairs in the Rout= ing Area. We would, of course, welcome insight about which issues need spec= ial attention in training, but a shopping list only has limited value: we m= ay need more structured help developing topics and material for training.

Yes, I see efforts of tr= aining and think=C2=A0a procedure update=C2=A0draft for remote chairing/edi= ting=C2=A0is important for all participants to consider. However, it should= be discussed/solved=C2=A0openly by all diverse community (I don't see = much remote discussions on that by the diverse=C2=A0community).=C2=A0

=C2=A0<= /u>

The second case is a lear= ning process. We can help by making material available to newcomers, by bei= ng available as chairs, AD, and long-time IETFers, and through the newly es= tablished mentors program. But lack of understanding of IETF process and th= e normal mode of operation of the IETF can lead to the third case...=

If we agree that i= gnoring/feeling-ignored=C2=A0is wrong in all IETF=C2=A0responsibilities,=C2= =A0then we can stop=C2=A0it at both sides the chair and the=C2=A0participan= t=C2=A0sides by defining its full=C2=A0reasons.=C2=A0

=C2=A0<= /u>

It is important to unders= tand how to make effective contributions to the IETF and how some contribut= ions will not get a response because they are essentially empty of construc= tive input. Thus, if someone makes a comment like "You should write mo= re about foo" then the editor may agree or disagree, but it is clear t= hat *someone* has to expand on the issues that need to be covered and to wr= ite the text. It is far more constructive to break down the topic that need= s to be addressed, to explain why it needs to be covered, and to actually s= upply text. "Repeat offenders" who demand that other people do wo= rk will find that their comments start to be ignored to the point that even= if they go on to make a reasonable and helpful contribution no-one is read= ing their email any more. That's a bad situation that we all have to wo= rk to improve.

Who decides constr= uctive? It is=C2=A0the community or the WG but not the WG=C2=A0chair/editor= . If I am a chair/editor I have to respond to make the IETF=C2=A0process wo= rk better. A WG list is created to discuss not to examen constructive input= s, in organisations the staff discuss without ignoring inputs, so I only pu= t the compulsory respond on=C2=A0chair/editor,=C2=A0if they want to fulfil = their job.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Let's take your email= on this thread as a direct example. You have raised some concerns via an a= ssertion that you have not substantiated with verifiable facts or even anec= dote. You have asked two questions that many feel are self-evident and don&= #39;t need an answer. You end by saying "IETF should..." and you = may be right, but you are not contributing to the solution. What are the de= tailed actions you would like to see? How can those actions be achieved? Wh= o will contribute the work?

This list particip= ants and Me=C2=A0will discuss the issue=C2=A0that is why it was posted. It = is still under discovery or process for future work. However, it is an obse= rvation and point of view as starting to=C2=A0define=C2=A0a problem for dis= cussions. Your questions are important, but needs the list participants/vie= wers/DT=C2=A0to not ignore answering them.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

This is a very important = topic, but I fear your email does nothing to further the state of the art.= =C2=A0

IMHO the signal=C2=A0in the right channel=C2=A0is an excell= ent start, the signal is just a signal for future communication and solutio= ns.=C2=A0

Many of us ar= e working hard (in our spare time, of course) to make it easier to integrat= e newcomers and remote participants into the IETF. There are many projects = running, some of them in their early stages. We could do more, I am sure. P= lease give us some concrete and constructive help.

I want to know tho= se projects, are they posted her in this list,=C2=A0why ietfers=C2=A0not di= scussed on this list (do they=C2=A0ignore or hide from=C2=A0community inter= fere). This=C2=A0list is not bussy (another observation).=C2=A0Some efforts= are not constructive if=C2=A0the work is private or done=C2=A0in DT withou= t reporting to the IETF=C2=A0community. I=C2=A0need help and you/draft-edit= ors need help, so let us discuss/share that=C2=A0remotely on a list but=C2= =A0without working alone/privately=C2=A0for any project related to diversit= y. Some may say who am I to be equal to IETF real=C2=A0contributors (ADs, C= hairs, WG editors, etc), they even can say to me that=C2=A0you have no RFC = so please make one first before trying to change the process=C2=A0(I am aga= inst that response=C2=A0theory or=C2=A0ignorance=C2=A0behavior).=C2=A0

Thanks for your advise and help.

AB
=

=C2=A0

Adrian

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: diversity [mailto:diversity= -bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 27 July 2014 07:57
To: diversity@ietf.org
= Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors

=C2=A0

In IETF with its=C2=A0remote participation main work process,=C2=A0i= t is very easy to get ignored/not-respond-to=C2=A0by WG chairs or WG editor= =C2=A0specially if you are=C2=A0newcomer or if you are an academic/student/= etc.=C2=A0Is the=C2=A0IETF owned by industry or=C2=A0companies? Or do chair= s and editors need training/mentoring?

=C2=A0

However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response=C2= =A0without a=C2=A0respond on the WG list,=C2=A0because they may have reason= s or they=C2=A0may need help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this is= sue if it is organised=C2=A0to support=C2=A0diversity and serious to=C2=A0i= nvolve more participants from all the real world=C2=A0community.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

AB

<= /div> --20cf301af57f0bd44504ff2ceefc-- From nobody Sun Jul 27 10:49:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF891A0AF0 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:49:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2KNJwTj70MxO for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317991A0AD7 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.235.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6RHnBCf018569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406483364; x=1406569764; bh=NsvWbQsf/s2AODDVzUXhnYpfMgrUlWDg+E17Cu7KFMc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=X8zuffESzhQJLw03aWuCm5a3T/D+EFkE+X2KCptipNtPLjPC+/ZaHkY75vKRAKf/A yQBuu5wc45PerCV78UOzYFEUv/Q9CFqL5gzdPG2WDyW3+zFLpRu61YZ0Y0PPXZZwav QPdCfCxV1uLm9KOTIlvLsEEXn91WVtOQPfWWqx34= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406483364; x=1406569764; i=@elandsys.com; bh=NsvWbQsf/s2AODDVzUXhnYpfMgrUlWDg+E17Cu7KFMc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=No2MlcbOxc06t/rHGAunZs22kp9rV08gLl89wNL05E9db4uL7Xr0MxaAzl36/9VXS HI2FXh8qELxCLG9MawR/V0lpwfazFHrGLNByh27GcLY9q+I/rY33jCx5ilZHh0qsBP OZJWZSN8CpkTSfNH9NIAlaVNlTWRmQLnyEcmbzJs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727072011.0ca43748@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:44:56 -0700 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727003342.0c8f9458@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/QbHJu9o4uyM94qgOwLrQf2CxA88 Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:49:34 -0000 Hi Abdussalam, At 06:22 27-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >They need training by IETF because some WGs are with low quality in >terms of constructive discussions. The above does not provide any information about the discussions which are of low quality. Let's assume that I take your request to the Routing Area Director. He will expect me to provide some information. This is where I say that Mr Baryun told me that some working group chairs and working group editors need training. I don't think that it will be considered as a convincing argument. The Routing Area Director will ignore my request. If the Routing Area Director is nice he will explain to me why he cannot do anything about my request. There is a message from Mr Farrel at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00548.html He responded to your comment in less than 24 hours. His message explained what he thought about what you wrote. >It is not about me or you, it is about an IETF hat or power. How can >an WG chair/editor use their hat against the IETF best process? It >is responsibility of IETF to stop ignorance of IETF position-holders. I am replying to this message because a person wrote it. I would not bother about the message if it was signed by the IETF as the IETF is not a person. Responsibility is the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone. An organization would not understand the meaning of the word "responsibility". There is a nomination committee in the IETF which elects the "position-holders". It is up to the persons on that committee to determine whether the "position-holders" are qualified or not. There isn't an IETF best process. A working group chair or working group editor can only violate the process rules if nobody in the group raised an objection. I'll mention that process rules are not meant to be followed blindly. I'll provide an example: if a person steals a loaf of bread, would I report that offense if I know that the person is hungry? No. >For me I was ignored many times and want to solve the issue of what >to do diversely so I am now discussing it her with the >diverse-community and not with Those position holders. One definition of the word "community" is "group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common". The only characteristic the readers of this mailing list have in common is that they have subscribed to this mailing list. I don't think that the mailing list can be called a community. There is a response to Mr Farrel's message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00551.html I'll select parts of that message: "Who decides constructive? It is the community or the WG but not the WG chair/editor. If I am a chair/editor I have to respond to make the IETF process work better." The quoted text does not explain why you think that the community decides about what is constructive. One definition of the word "constructive" is "having or intended to have a useful or beneficial purpose". I have acted as a working group chair. I considered it as my responsibility within that working group to determine what is useful or beneficial. "This list participants and Me will discuss the issue that is why it was posted. It is still under discovery or process for future work. However, it is an observation and point of view as starting to define a problem for discussions." My understanding of the above is that there hasn't been much research into the issue. The message does not provide any information for me to learn about the problem(s). >That is good for IETF but we need WG chair/editors to be like you >before asking the community to adopt or WGLC (searching for all >community feedback and responding). Thanks. Let me criticize the example I gave previously. That message did not contain any references for a person to determine whether what I wrote was true. If it was an objection there is a chance that the objection would be rejected. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Sun Jul 27 14:03:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7143E1A0343 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ilEHC1F8-z5w for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25B51A033D for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.235.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6RL3ZSH005611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:03:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406495030; x=1406581430; bh=Gn7CkEnbCsLjGjtR7sBI5yC3rT27ULzbG7jFSp9QOW4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1efYBH83wbQ+gQkSqMuvkS6pRqVInCQM3p8xaVLzf7Wv2+Ocu4lfgMYC+OdZ63Gym oEg3oSWQgK1b7hmQONA8qxNn6/+72ooYKMrdDfjwgUVTNG9mhcNhrbWBXetBSD1EO/ eLFslMeyyd+rH6tQc00BMR07QtTs7YOYQUGfGi9w= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406495030; x=1406581430; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Gn7CkEnbCsLjGjtR7sBI5yC3rT27ULzbG7jFSp9QOW4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Lmp6/IFilLel8rw3OiqbgIX9YHklCaKYfTxvUPxS5qFhhUF+XE07SprUkUvJBG8Ql wFZ8VI9mipuQgNOHdiSD6eRTOQctawgjbo06h7MaXktRbJsBf3JehSUaSdaWp53otn E+3CjfwepMNfu6QpRtEL7vGszkcAZKeLH41zuIIY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:43:14 -0700 To: Sandra Murphy From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/4P983eBccpu2Yy6Z6yfad6LRs1A Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:03:55 -0000 Hi Sandra, At 06:47 27-07-2014, Sandra Murphy wrote: >Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing >to progress our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target. I am quoting the above out of context. One definition of the word "derogatory" is "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". A person has feelings. Being discourteous towards a person can be hurtful for that person. An organization does not have feelings. My reading of the above is that I have to be respectful towards an organization. To illustrate the case it might be construed that the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html was disrespectful towards an organization. An extreme reading of the text quoted above might get the reader to conclude that it is inappropriate to indicate the faults of an organization. I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop to all negative remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control. I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Sun Jul 27 18:42:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E7C1B27EA for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:42:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7kvNdIMuuqsC for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x235.google.com (mail-yk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CEAC1B27F6 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q200so4249094ykb.40 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:42:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wF5PMUllQgFCt45sIWAoeX+/NcthTykmvihiR2sVJ90=; b=Dmpkg6JW4M9nuUPzrMud//DzXCVNQR4FebLBM/RKpI59OGlBBecW0lqJ9H4tKuVfiS aW9mIyBI28xl2UVYKg3rkv9OinXDfTtfLqWLpyoGH06nsS7+3049D4w5S9ZiZzGIfXZY Gvjg8HR7c5wBM9aqG/lKOEdm8ZbeK7gML8OCofRxl/JOvXKCsuYqxYXpWM0IdyyJXEvc g4gVAP06z9H0YLCJHXM1h+lqIxAOLRQJdIGl1Bmrbd1rrUtE3hkJ6sb/zdfvU99YGaOm ErLc1iUtB4TFWyAHIUL606ETN0DT4HTu+Wr2j7rQzgt7KvRBF2D33hlL5S28kink+U+3 mArQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.10.66 with SMTP id 42mr46720096yhu.68.1406511746671; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.44.216 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:42:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:42:26 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136b28c086a0e04ff370986 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/LK6G3_w6i-qduZ02LqD22IfZHGs Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 01:42:29 -0000 --001a1136b28c086a0e04ff370986 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It is useful to relate progress to work quality or participants discussions. Feelings have no much value in engineering work/interaction, but in social interaction it is good to have good feelings with all people. On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Sandra, > At 06:47 27-07-2014, Sandra Murphy wrote: > >> Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing to >> progress our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target. >> > > I am quoting the above out of context. > > One definition of the word "derogatory" is "showing a critical or > disrespectful attitude". A person has feelings. Being discourteous > towards a person can be hurtful for that person. An organization does not > have feelings. IMHO feelings do not help progress in our engineering interests/works, but what matters are positive criticisms to process-drivers and organisation bodies. There may not be progress because many participants ignore to participate in process issues (or general area issues). My reading of the above is that I have to be respectful towards an > organization. To illustrate the case it might be construed that the > message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html > was disrespectful towards an organization. > > An extreme reading of the text quoted above might get the reader to > conclude that it is inappropriate to indicate the faults of an > organization. It just means that no use from remarks because that efforts will not change. Text Seems to say management are not democratic enough to consider such marks. > I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop to all > negative remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control. A negative in one side may be a positive in the other side, but for the organisation to be positive needs all parts to share, and work together in discussions and reviews. > > I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd. I don't think so, usually criticising (related to draft/work/performance) a business is more useful than criticising a person in terms of its effects on work/process. AB --001a1136b28c086a0e04ff370986 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is useful to relate progress to work quality or participants discussions= . Feelings have no much value in engineering work/interaction, but in=C2=A0= social interaction=C2=A0it is good to have good feelings with all people.= =C2=A0

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Sandra,
At 06:47 27-07-2014, Sandra Murphy wrote:
Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing to progr= ess our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target.

I am quoting the above out of context.

One definition of the word "derogatory" is "showing a critic= al or disrespectful attitude". =C2=A0A person has feelings. =C2=A0Bein= g discourteous towards a person can be hurtful for that person. =C2=A0An or= ganization does not have feelings. =C2=A0

IMHO feelin= gs do not help progress in our engineering=C2=A0interests/works, but what m= atters are positive criticisms to process-drivers and organisation bodies.= =C2=A0=C2=A0There may not be progress because many participants ignore to p= articipate in process issues (or general area issues).=C2=A0

My reading of the above is th= at I have to be respectful towards an organization. =C2=A0To illustrate the= case it might be construed that the message at http://w= ww.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html w= as disrespectful towards an organization.

An extreme reading of the text quoted above might get the reader to conclud= e that it is inappropriate to indicate the faults of an organization. =C2= =A0

It just means that no use from remarks bec= ause that efforts will not change. Text=C2=A0Seems to say=C2=A0management a= re not democratic enough to consider such marks.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop to all negativ= e remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control.
<= div>
A negative in one side may be a positive in the other si= de, but for the organisation to be=C2=A0positive needs all parts to share, = and work together in discussions and reviews.=C2=A0

I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd.

I don't think so, usually criticising (rel= ated to draft/work/performance)=C2=A0a business is more useful=C2=A0than cr= iticising a person in terms of its=C2=A0effects on work/process.=C2=A0

AB=C2=A0
--001a1136b28c086a0e04ff370986-- From nobody Sun Jul 27 18:48:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62471B27F2 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:48:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uN1ijf2MVwau for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ADDC1A0444 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so5389124lbi.29 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:48:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=z2xVknxaJSQnXvFql/grnSSUezoiP3jUfjLFMQnFtBk=; b=Ry7nHqlEygM4o1pcJhsn8Lu7AlZvWraCbn0dMYiW7JyhnR8hJI0+6p2dOLKPqjb77/ QP0ZPRx0x9L2KBpX06n+i3t4I6yi5JIWCMIJur37cq0iOVnVyKms12iyr1Tvs1BQn+q6 sB6v4Tz5LeMjfwCTP+iCo5TVMcKwNO6o99YUAVvvYZYws+pICHvYbU97Uz61Yp2wk1DQ e+d+1GcQA8IpTaY/CcJxf4JKb2MZsP1hs7dwqhjU9oMqahP2OSU3vApdv5fH8wK1tfvi j40a8tFLqs29pNhOijIHuxO7Qq+pdPf6CCk3E2AFeQ2ypTsU4swNUwxFpt4spqltrrJe eo9w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.171.134 with SMTP id au6mr29728223lbc.21.1406512122553; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.147.168 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:48:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 21:48:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c376dc6fece804ff371f30 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/mhI0PQqa3XlSdD6xQlxWfPamtgM Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 01:48:46 -0000 --001a11c376dc6fece804ff371f30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello, I've been read through the various responses and do want to assure folks that diversity is important to the IETF and its leadership. I had separate conversations with Jari, Russ, and several ADs on next steps while in Toronto last week. This is an important topic that will require continued improvements as change does not happen overnight. I am sorry to hear that some sessions may have had interactions that were not agreeable to remote participants. I have actually noticed a difference and improved behavior of all participants in the sessions I attended. I was very pleased to see this change and to hear others making similar comments. There are bound to be issues still and we'll have to work together. While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibility to help improve behavior, it will take all members to truly have an impact. In one security session I attended, the room got very hot, which would not have been apparent to remote participants. This resulted in the meeting attendees becoming cranky over time. While the room temperature was corrected, the behavior (while not that bad), was corrected by participants. The WH chair or AD could have done the same thing, but the quick acting participant had a very positive impact (as did the temperature in the room going down). The type of changes that the IETF has been working to correct takes all of the members and not just the leadership and it does take time. We will have to continue to work at this and calling out specific behavior can help. Additional work needs to happen and helpful suggestions for improvement are welcome. Additional education is one of the ideas being discussed. AB, you may have have noticed the long threads on the IETF list as well, we all agree that this is an important area for improvement int he IETF. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Sandra, > At 06:47 27-07-2014, Sandra Murphy wrote: > >> Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing to >> progress our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target. >> > > I am quoting the above out of context. > > One definition of the word "derogatory" is "showing a critical or > disrespectful attitude". A person has feelings. Being discourteous > towards a person can be hurtful for that person. An organization does not > have feelings. My reading of the above is that I have to be respectful > towards an organization. To illustrate the case it might be construed that > the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/ > msg87153.html was disrespectful towards an organization. > > An extreme reading of the text quoted above might get the reader to > conclude that it is inappropriate to indicate the faults of an > organization. I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop > to all negative remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control. > > I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > -- Best regards, Kathleen --001a11c376dc6fece804ff371f30 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

I've been read through the v= arious responses and do want to assure folks that diversity is important to= the IETF and its leadership. =C2=A0I had separate conversations with Jari,= Russ, and several ADs on next steps while in Toronto last week. =C2=A0This= is an important topic that will require continued improvements as change d= oes not happen overnight. =C2=A0

I am sorry to hear that some sessions may have had inte= ractions that were not agreeable to remote participants. =C2=A0I have actua= lly noticed a difference and improved behavior of all participants in the s= essions I attended. =C2=A0I was very pleased to see this change and to hear= others making similar comments. =C2=A0There are bound to be issues still a= nd we'll have to work together.

While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibili= ty to help improve behavior, it will take all members to truly have an impa= ct. =C2=A0In one security session I attended, the room got very hot, which = would not have been apparent to remote participants. =C2=A0This resulted in= the meeting attendees becoming cranky over time. =C2=A0While the room temp= erature was corrected, the behavior (while not that bad), was corrected by = participants. =C2=A0The WH chair or AD could have done the same thing, but = the quick acting participant had a very positive impact (as did the tempera= ture in the room going down). =C2=A0The type of changes that the IETF has b= een working to correct takes all of the members and not just the leadership= and it does take time. =C2=A0We will have to continue to work at this and = calling out specific behavior can help. =C2=A0Additional work needs to happ= en and helpful suggestions for improvement are welcome. =C2=A0Additional ed= ucation is one of the ideas being discussed. =C2=A0AB, you may have have no= ticed the long threads on the IETF list as well, we all agree that this is = an important area for improvement int he IETF.





=


On Sun,= Jul 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
Hi Sandra,
At 06:47 27-07-2014, Sandra Murphy wrote:
Derogatory remarks directed at persons or organizations do nothing to progr= ess our understanding or consensus and are not fair to the target.

I am quoting the above out of context.

One definition of the word "derogatory" is "showing a critic= al or disrespectful attitude". =C2=A0A person has feelings. =C2=A0Bein= g discourteous towards a person can be hurtful for that person. =C2=A0An or= ganization does not have feelings. =C2=A0My reading of the above is that I = have to be respectful towards an organization. =C2=A0To illustrate the case= it might be construed that the message at http://www.ie= tf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87153.html was di= srespectful towards an organization.

An extreme reading of the text quoted above might get the reader to conclud= e that it is inappropriate to indicate the faults of an organization. =C2= =A0I understand that there are times when one has to put a stop to all nega= tive remarks to avoid having a working group run out of control.

I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy =C2=A0
_______________________________________________
diversity mailing list
diversity@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity



--

Best regards,
Kathleen
--001a11c376dc6fece804ff371f30-- From nobody Mon Jul 28 04:10:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CADE1A0163 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWxSBPVunWRy for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5544F1A03F5 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6SBA899010277; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:10:11 +0100 Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D930161864; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:01:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from 950129200 ([149.254.183.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6S70tg2005120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:00:57 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'S Moonesamy'" , "'Sandra Murphy'" References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:00:58 +0100 Message-ID: <08cc01cfaa31$b334b8d0$199e2a70$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIZ+T+Oe2UqNOAf/rvBikmFeqqOGgEaN8wtmxedUhA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20844.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.161-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--1.161-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: zGP2F0O7j/s4HKI/yaqRm2zBijri5+RVw6JaEJ55Sy/KY//WmIj/oeEP B5Tz+RqMiILVB7l+HWXGp/huIU6WTKVANXR76KLeW7gz/Gbgpl6O74ZfTyAQsG+z4vyzjztsyEA 29FmKSrWpcyDrmeOIO23QnIhm3qtisaYKl6IqtEG3Q9wUiDIFOLVcf2q5Y2iTEoBacoHAF/8/eB 19uIKrQu603UuayBt6sxHxO4/6/xw3KXWd30Ii3Tl/1fD/Gopd2K+lN2ZUJHbEQdG7H66TyJ8TM nmE+d0ZYbBTmWsNuKVFfzAdBpVYbd/ihhS1GMm5ta9aFumhQz0tn/prX0w9HojFmZZhD/rgmZo7 U/LEOqEx5Xha9VKz2DgNbS0PCNZnxCoeW0dT2BaH/JCvitQD6SHK6aCMTbp1ojykM9thkxFWXGv UUmKP2w== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/gCXHnlUEbB0yoIoIYSH7_mYYWPE Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:10:33 -0000 SM, > I am quoting the above out of context. And so will I :-) > I find giving a person and a business the same consideration quite odd. Actually, it is *all* about giving persons consideration, but the impact of attacking an organisation can be the same as that of attacking a race or nationality, or any other generality. If you work for FooCorp and say something at the mic, my response that "FooCorp is well known for its stupid ideas and anti-competitive nature" might be true, but would also be a proxy attack on you and what you said. If I had said the same thing commenting on your race or religion it would clearly have been over the line. One benefit of the IETF myth that we are all individuals is that, while we acknowledge corporate affiliations for transparency, we also contribute, act, and are judged on technical merits not according to other attributes (such as beards, height, or good looks). Essentially, therefore, *any* comment that is not closely linked to the technical content of discussions is at best irrelevant and at worst an attack on an individual or a class of individuals. Pip pip, Adrian From nobody Mon Jul 28 07:18:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA8B1B2829 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BKF8qjv1FNhY for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17D3C1ABB2C for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:18:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6SEIFJb025730; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:18:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p54891BB5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.27.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B187596; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:18:14 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <08cc01cfaa31$b334b8d0$199e2a70$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:18:13 +0200 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 428249893.23868-3e4592919e3afad2e3497a3f3e03f5b7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> <08cc01cfaa31$b334b8d0$199e2a70$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/oF2yQ3sHgALNmXrwT5qlLBUSPLQ Cc: diversity@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:18:38 -0000 > If you work for FooCorp and say something at the mic, my response that = "FooCorp > is well known for its stupid ideas and anti-competitive nature" might = be true, > but would also be a proxy attack on you and what you said. +1 > Essentially, therefore, *any* comment that is not closely linked to = the > technical content of discussions is at best irrelevant and at worst an = attack on > an individual or a class of individuals. Specifically, =93FooCorp makes its money selling the more powerful chips = into this business and therefore has a vested interest in preferring the = more complex solutions=94 (completely hypothetical example, of course) = would be a *valid* comment on somebody from FooCorp giving their opinion = on a complexity-vs-functionality issue, even though a slight undertone = about attacking the commenter=92s integrity cannot be avoided (intended = or not). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From nobody Mon Jul 28 12:06:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AB71A0AE3 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0mTs2DZgpq4o for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEBE1A0AC4 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.158.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6SJ6Ykb006555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406574412; x=1406660812; bh=qsN2XCMIAR5ZBQW8mQmPDiizN/jcpk+jILRD3b6nsWI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ACDRNVKiKURWDFTMuJkqMfvnE5eP+3azgRD/gnGENHEvy8loWD72Obr39pqT70xJ5 tE8JS5esvIcefsI0FfI5ao94HdslwWs22qW4eu2VqnOkyjNZkjmf9A3djGPOdrdUeR CrcaQsaAS2dD4HX6qoa917r40XrcLOMBqfe5On8I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406574412; x=1406660812; i=@elandsys.com; bh=qsN2XCMIAR5ZBQW8mQmPDiizN/jcpk+jILRD3b6nsWI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=j5zP7Cq0Utb9bHvpKteim7ga1kH0HHxZJ8M7K7ZTYfgbP+foJP2i8BefsS4Hdz0b1 kbVW0AIISeZWWcvTmF0BY/CIBcas4oZpFR9HPq20FjjVnOhtNk2uOFl7QBPyFd8r0H 7O/ev0hs8IUU+SCLL9a8VpQUAqnsKfmHdC309zdU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140728081307.0d39b1b0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:20:42 -0700 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Sandra Murphy From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <08cc01cfaa31$b334b8d0$199e2a70$@olddog.co.uk> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> <08cc01cfaa31$b334b8d0$199e2a70$@olddog.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/63yelv7bXwOjnf2_k6PyhTyj5Go Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:06:54 -0000 Hi Adrian, At 00:00 28-07-2014, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Actually, it is *all* about giving persons consideration, but the impact of >attacking an organisation can be the same as that of attacking a race or >nationality, or any other generality. > >If you work for FooCorp and say something at the mic, my response >that "FooCorp >is well known for its stupid ideas and anti-competitive nature" might be true, >but would also be a proxy attack on you and what you said. If I had said the >same thing commenting on your race or religion it would clearly have been over >the line. Let's say you working for a company called Old Dog. I see you in the room and I use the words "stupid" and "anti-competitive" to describe Old Dog in response to something you said. The working group chair could scold me. This is where I say that it is censorship. :-) >One benefit of the IETF myth that we are all individuals is that, while we >acknowledge corporate affiliations for transparency, we also contribute, act, >and are judged on technical merits not according to other attributes (such as >beards, height, or good looks). This is the core of the problem. On one hand we say that we are all individuals and on the other hand some people might consider the proxy attack as a personal attack. Let's assume that we do not wish to encourage proxy attacks. The person chairing the session would have to put a stop to that discussion immediately. >Essentially, therefore, *any* comment that is not closely linked to the >technical content of discussions is at best irrelevant and at worst >an attack on >an individual or a class of individuals. Yes. It is not worth the effort to define what is an attack [1] as people will find a way around that. I guess that I would look at the interaction and say something about it. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. See comment from Carsten From nobody Mon Jul 28 12:06:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4051A0AC4 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MEdDNQD2RMl3 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F71B1A0AD3 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.158.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6SJ6YkZ006555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406574406; x=1406660806; bh=dJ4SddAcHdjCih+/qAxQ/QRhcHAVKhAGNLR7TeWKDPU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=T6Q3yH28BRdcHaM/oQs0ZUg81YmrBgewPF+VeZSGzL0xZsL5LSApazjir6QIlavut ackp8/kbUez4ESAzDGF1DB5Z5i9ilDA7i+zim1vmBqizoD3BNfiMazP3SWb1TTT1mQ T83VRRy0ZY62UAwqWhyFP6cwtXoBq1RX3uanOAMA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406574406; x=1406660806; i=@elandsys.com; bh=dJ4SddAcHdjCih+/qAxQ/QRhcHAVKhAGNLR7TeWKDPU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=MSSMwwTXG2diQVdFR1kRxUNmfWLb2gZ/B898ut6GIkqzRBe1WoMX+ve1Ox72ZzQgQ jRMfgPmsl/JBjz7PxycJMnXJWTkq6Jhnx1eDr6x0m3B5MBxCKB7wX3mwz34tiJDjpH BgafGwStrhXGoLKpzX3IXMwmZadkE0DGVhsWhiw0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727222541.0d3297b0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:09:40 -0700 To: Kathleen Moriarty , diversity@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/fEPKRAzbYiplOgI2b13aJNTMQZs Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:06:55 -0000 Hi Kathleen, At 18:48 27-07-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibility to help >improve behavior, it will take all members to truly have an >impact. In one security session I attended, the room got very hot, >which would not have been apparent to remote participants. This >resulted in the meeting attendees becoming cranky over time. While >the room temperature was corrected, the behavior (while not that >bad), was corrected by participants. The WH chair or AD could have >done the same thing, but the quick acting participant had a very >positive impact (as did the temperature in the room going >down). The type of changes that the IETF has been working to >correct takes all of the members and not just the leadership and it >does take time. We will have to continue to work at this and >calling out specific behavior can help. Additional work needs to >happen and helpful suggestions for improvement are >welcome. Additional education is one of the ideas being discussed. There was a letter written in March 2013. There has been an IETF statement related to behavior. A draft, intended as a BCP, has been discussed. Have there been any results since then? I don't really know. I followed a few sessions remotely. It was the usual (not bad). The plenary highlighted that there are a lot of people who do not read the ietf@ mailing list and there is high probability that they do not read this mailing list. These people have the ability to influence the choice of IESG members. Some of these people have been in the IETF longer than most of the people on this mailing list. I doubt that education would work. There are advantages and disadvantages for calling out specific behavior. The advantage is that people do not see a problem unless it is pointed out to them. A disadvantage is that it is bad for one's career. Will there be a loss of expertise if specific behavior is being called out? Yes. As a formal comment, the IESG is responsible for behavioral matters. Having been through these problematic situations twice I find it difficult to blame the IESG. I am not convinced by the "it takes time" argument as it is well-known that there are repeated offenders. It is not possible to get all members to help. If that is the what it is needed to truly have an impact I would say that it is an unachievable objective. I think that you identified one suggestion, i.e. the quick acting participant. There is issue management; that can provide an idea of what to expect in a session. The person chairing the session is responsible for what is happening in the room. He or she could guide the discussions so that the controversies do not blow up out of proportion. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Mon Jul 28 12:26:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E9A1B28F6 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:26:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9W_x9cAYzGAj for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20041A00BE for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b8so5788799lan.19 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:26:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+m1fcnB1a3KkcmLm1ErbFFFVbYFdc8PZBHbXaNRJPUE=; b=nBbZwuy7j6MNKwYS+F8QAgJV6zxUgqwBpEd1JuahPj6i+a0+pqxPZfo17+eRo6eifO R1pmBCpoZL4uzqUaCJIdwSRZAhhIgjZtMpLBGY8I+F4OWSPd4GXCh1xnZA0MOZsxUfwE 0omqn+FkwYQBBXFUQkdsGdn/oB5MEe8v2WUhfgdCJf7IxORO9zFv6i/igROueCM3khD9 Wnc06nBOBF78UJ/Uwuursx14Eq+cSK7qR9pdKUnwkuGyFC0zHU84C6PQF6gWGlaarr5A B96aiNYqfvF/kbnsKK/JTJgq2xjE95Dl1kodrGC8HosUWEk49BsgGm5jHd8R6RmrRT7q OpOg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.245.171 with SMTP id xp11mr37473947lac.61.1406575609049; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.147.168 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727222541.0d3297b0@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140727222541.0d3297b0@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:26:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11345e1286f80904ff45e73a Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/sda5cnr3aW2wLiQ_nMjMkEu8AM4 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:26:53 -0000 --001a11345e1286f80904ff45e73a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi SM, On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Kathleen, > > At 18:48 27-07-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > >> While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibility to help improve >> behavior, it will take all members to truly have an impact. In one >> security session I attended, the room got very hot, which would not have >> been apparent to remote participants. This resulted in the meeting >> attendees becoming cranky over time. While the room temperature was >> corrected, the behavior (while not that bad), was corrected by >> participants. The WH chair or AD could have done the same thing, but the >> quick acting participant had a very positive impact (as did the temperature >> in the room going down). The type of changes that the IETF has been >> working to correct takes all of the members and not just the leadership and >> it does take time. We will have to continue to work at this and calling >> out specific behavior can help. Additional work needs to happen and >> helpful suggestions for improvement are welcome. Additional education is >> one of the ideas being discussed. >> > > There was a letter written in March 2013. There has been an IETF > statement related to behavior. A draft, intended as a BCP, has been > discussed. Have there been any results since then? I don't really know. > No BCP was published. A reading list was compiled in a draft and summary presentations were provided. > > I followed a few sessions remotely. It was the usual (not bad). The > plenary highlighted that there are a lot of people who do not read the ietf@ > mailing list and there is high probability that they do not read this > mailing list. These people have the ability to influence the choice of > IESG members. Some of these people have been in the IETF longer than most > of the people on this mailing list. I doubt that education would work. > Education won't work for everyone, I agree. I did however have a number of people mention that they learned a lot and could better see the other person's point of view. Even having some change has been good. > There are advantages and disadvantages for calling out specific behavior. > The advantage is that people do not see a problem unless it is pointed out > to them. A disadvantage is that it is bad for one's career. Will there be > a loss of expertise if specific behavior is being called out? Yes. > On the flip side, we could loose a lot of other valuable talent if it is not called out. The behavior I noticed that was called out was not one that would damage someone's career, but someone calling it out was the right thing to do. It set a tone and drew a line as to what would be okay in that setting. > > As a formal comment, the IESG is responsible for behavioral matters. > Having been through these problematic situations twice I find it difficult > to blame the IESG. I am not convinced by the "it takes time" argument as > it is well-known that there are repeated offenders. It is not possible to > get all members to help. If that is the what it is needed to truly have an > impact I would say that it is an unachievable objective. > I am sorry you have been through problematic situations even once. I agree that not everyone will help, but some that will can make a difference and it will never be perfect. I think the poll Jari took about IETF list was telling, many juts won't use it to avoid the noise. > I think that you identified one suggestion, i.e. the quick acting > participant. There is issue management; that can provide an idea of what > to expect in a session. The person chairing the session is responsible for > what is happening in the room. He or she could guide the discussions so > that the controversies do not blow up out of proportion. > Agreed. In this case, the room temperature was pretty unbearable and I am sure that was a factor. The issue was corrected and everyone was happier. Thanks, Kathleen > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > -- Best regards, Kathleen --001a11345e1286f80904ff45e73a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi SM,


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM, S Moonesamy &= lt;sm+ietf@elands= ys.com> wrote:
Hi Kathleen,

At 18:48 27-07-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
While the IETF leadership absolutely has a responsibility to help improve b= ehavior, it will take all members to truly have an impact. =C2=A0In one sec= urity session I attended, the room got very hot, which would not have been = apparent to remote participants. =C2=A0This resulted in the meeting attende= es becoming cranky over time. =C2=A0While the room temperature was correcte= d, the behavior (while not that bad), was corrected by participants. =C2=A0= The WH chair or AD could have done the same thing, but the quick acting par= ticipant had a very positive impact (as did the temperature in the room goi= ng down). =C2=A0The type of changes that the IETF has been working to corre= ct takes all of the members and not just the leadership and it does take ti= me. =C2=A0We will have to continue to work at this and calling out specific= behavior can help. =C2=A0Additional work needs to happen and helpful sugge= stions for improvement are welcome. =C2=A0Additional education is one of th= e ideas being discussed.

There was a letter written in March 2013. =C2=A0There has been an IETF stat= ement related to behavior. =C2=A0A draft, intended as a BCP, has been discu= ssed. =C2=A0Have there been any results since then? =C2=A0I don't reall= y know.

No BCP was published. =C2=A0A reading list was compiled= in a draft and summary presentations were provided.

I followed a few sessions remotely. =C2=A0It was the usual (not bad). =C2= =A0The plenary highlighted that there are a lot of people who do not read t= he ietf@ mailing list and there is high probability that they do not read t= his mailing list. =C2=A0These people have the ability to influence the choi= ce of IESG members. =C2=A0Some of these people have been in the IETF longer= than most of the people on this mailing list. =C2=A0I doubt that education= would work.

Education won't work for everyone, I a= gree. =C2=A0I did however have a number of people mention that they learned= a lot and could better see the other person's point of view. =C2=A0Eve= n having some change has been good.


There are advantages and disadvantages for calling out specific behavior. = =C2=A0The advantage is that people do not see a problem unless it is pointe= d out to them. =C2=A0A disadvantage is that it is bad for one's career.= =C2=A0Will there be a loss of expertise if specific behavior is being call= ed out? =C2=A0Yes.

On the flip side, we could loose a lot of = other valuable talent if it is not called out. =C2=A0The behavior I noticed= that was called out was not one that would damage someone's career, bu= t someone calling it out was the right thing to do. =C2=A0It set a tone and= drew a line as to what would be okay in that setting. =C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0

As a formal comment, the IESG is responsible for behavioral matters. =C2=A0= Having been through these problematic situations twice I find it difficult = to blame the IESG. =C2=A0I am not convinced by the "it takes time"= ; argument as it is well-known that there are repeated offenders. =C2=A0It = is not possible to get all members to help. =C2=A0If that is the what it is= needed to truly have an impact I would say that it is an unachievable obje= ctive.

I am sorry you have been through problemat= ic situations even once. =C2=A0I agree that not everyone will help, but som= e that will can make a difference and it will never be perfect. =C2=A0I thi= nk the poll Jari took about IETF list was telling, many juts won't use = it to avoid the noise.


I think that you identified one suggestion, i.e. the quick acting participa= nt. =C2=A0There is issue management; that can provide an idea of what to ex= pect in a session. =C2=A0The person chairing the session is responsible for= what is happening in the room. =C2=A0He or she could guide the discussions= so that the controversies do not blow up out of proportion.

Agreed. =C2=A0In this case, the room tempe= rature was pretty unbearable and I am sure that was a factor. =C2=A0The iss= ue was corrected and everyone was happier.

Thanks,=
Kathleen=C2=A0

Regards,
S. Moonesamy



--

Best regards,
Kathleen
--001a11345e1286f80904ff45e73a-- From nobody Mon Jul 28 16:53:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6C01A0298 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vlNu02z-bpEQ for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8701A0267 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.158.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6SNrA26023185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406591605; x=1406678005; bh=PsdXyO6mu1veatUKxC61afEiqn5qrYGlpnI1MYxJPp4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GtN5x8oTpMQd3K403XpsfNBAJzRBAaQeeUP7Cw6+9JOkxuiaWaVgIzfDmddKQvjyG lEwFuhuZqVNWopVJ7YNqm1bj1gK8KAZvGElSJF0IQCLsbV8P3g8CL3QMkrX80XncYW cVw7w1vXe8pxSHmxmXnsf+1tsqk5LByg7VegQVQE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406591605; x=1406678005; i=@elandsys.com; bh=PsdXyO6mu1veatUKxC61afEiqn5qrYGlpnI1MYxJPp4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=nOw9CHB1xcGcIPxbfaKZZgbtr3m/3xKV00lXoHFK8ndxzrdPm5R9O/Wr015W+XUm3 bmll66txHF6k/1x1An94aRBvFCgHYZIaP43SCdD95VsGNxMePA6X+EuJPRzfqPDvUQ dedidtKZO0t72uoBF0xFB1AiUoMqYZ0t8dBkZokw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140728123541.0d537f60@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:25:34 -0700 To: Kathleen Moriarty From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140727115546.0ca84fd0@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140727222541.0d3297b0@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/U45Uelx7T6lIskpQ_jb364t8JfY Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] civility in wg interactions X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:53:32 -0000 Hi Kathleen, At 12:26 28-07-2014, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >Education won't work for everyone, I agree. I did however have a >number of people mention that they learned a lot and could better >see the other person's point of view. Even having some change has been good. Yes. >I am sorry you have been through problematic situations even >once. I agree that not everyone will help, but some that will can >make a difference and it will never be perfect. I think the poll >Jari took about IETF list was telling, many juts won't use it to >avoid the noise. I should have explained this. I was aware that I was volunteering for problematic situations. I could have said no in both cases. I'll highlight something from your message: >The issue was corrected and everyone was happier. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Jul 31 01:40:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837BC1A0444 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:40:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZOt-EUljbIY for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22b.google.com (mail-yh0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E741A043D for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 29so1442818yhl.30 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:40:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VKdZlfEVdYFTGjy6kiXXEi1AomiUPdLa7mcaZAierus=; b=IfM0yM7Xy2VtH3DA7s9GmiDExCy2tah9STy7DzQVX5kJO86iSMocL0lCC1n8bKvGRR Tu97GU9DYgfuTWaMg29vECzDCCCN2T0jZNjQDwHIblj5WK+q5g99pfKo3/J780v80Vpt I1vouI06FcjXVqoG4imftItEdjSNt09wjNki+D6rccOxLuAWIBxJtoIC1m14J5vNE2rG lOqSABGjeiSJF+HC8ba76WPmYGIVWpVjJYxrzDewJaUiVs1/ZhZYMxDQdtWX0FuglRuW 6pBYjYXW5Q3VPpYSGhIEXY75r+8cIUMLg0iDyMm1oUPC68DDDi4yQ9Wl1xpOc3FNwYhb FYYw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.203.33 with SMTP id e21mr4426693yho.92.1406796048600; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.44.216 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:40:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:40:48 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158bfd0bf95f704ff793a22 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/MK92NZVv5cSbh9wOjtwMDDJ0GCM Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:40:54 -0000 --089e0158bfd0bf95f704ff793a22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Adrian and Moonesamy, 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. 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.), On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Abdussalam, > > > > Your claims are significant and need to be investigated. > > Yes, I try my best to find real related issues to IETF diversity problem. I hope IETF help in investigation. > But it is hard to work through them without concrete evidence, yet it may > also be hard to get such material without someone doing some analysis. > > 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. We may have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, and in doing so we have to > be careful to separate three things: > > - Real cases of remote participants being ignored > > 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. - Issues with lack of understanding of IETF process > > Also IETF may lack understanding of customers and new generations of diverse community. Usually there are always common sense processes for all organisations, the lack of understanding the community common sense will make management not achieve diversity in their community. > - False perception of being ignored > > > > It is a common sense issue, ignored is ignored especially when we are in an organisation not in the free street or free space/list/forum. IMHO Higher-positions in the organisation should not ignore within any relationship or discussion events. > Fundamentally, if someone feels that they are being ignored the > responsibility is shared. The community has a duty to not ignore; the > chairs and document editors have a duty to make sure all issues are > captured; and individuals (the ignored or the witnesses) have a duty to > flag specific incidents. > > Yes, but first it is IETF responsibility to not allow its positions to ignore parts or community or parts of discussions/inputs. Let us start from up to bottom to solve, IMHO it is not correct to solve from bottom especially when the management as not enough diversified. > > > The first case is, of course, the most important. It can arise for many > reasons, and we continue to attempt to train the working group chairs to > help them address some of these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to > apply here, and chair training will take time. Most recently, the chairs > had a session in Toronto to discuss ways of handling language and cultural > issues, while the Routing ADs have just put in place a program of training > sessions for the chairs in the Routing Area. We would, of course, welcome > insight about which issues need special attention in training, but a > shopping list only has limited value: we may need more structured help > developing topics and material for training. > > 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 second case is a learning process. We can help by making material > available to newcomers, by being available as chairs, AD, and long-time > IETFers, and through the newly established mentors program. But lack of > understanding of IETF process and the normal mode of operation of the IETF > can lead to the third case... > > 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. > > > It is important to understand how to make effective contributions to the > IETF and how some contributions will not get a response because they are > essentially empty of constructive input. > > Any participant is part of IETF work when he posts ideas/advise, so IETF should understand (its current and future management should understand) that all diverse inputs should be reflected in the IETF decisions equally likely. The process becomes constructive when its power-positions (chair, editor, AD) don't ignore any part of community/WG. > Thus, if someone makes a comment like "You should write more about foo" > then the editor may agree or disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has > to expand on the issues that need to be covered and to write the text. It > is far more constructive to break down the topic that needs to be > addressed, to explain why it needs to be covered, and to actually supply > text. "Repeat offenders" who demand that other people do work will find > that their comments start to be ignored to the point that even if they go > on to make a reasonable and helpful contribution no-one is reading their > email any more. That's a bad situation that we all have to work to improve. > > If any disagree they should respond, but editor/chair should not be in silent position. The chair is to guide participants especially new comers and old editors. we should make considerations clear so it becomes part of our IETF culture. Also ADs/chairs are responsible to guide that culture within all WG discussions and interactions. > > > Let's take your email on this thread as a direct example. You have raised > some concerns via an assertion that you have not substantiated with > verifiable facts or even anecdote. You have asked two questions that many > feel are self-evident and don't need an answer. You end by saying "IETF > should..." and you may be right, but you are not contributing to the > solution. What are the detailed actions you would like to see? How can > those actions be achieved? Who will contribute the work? > > > > This is a very important topic, but I fear your email does nothing to > further the state of the art. Many of us are working hard (in our spare > time, of course) to make it easier to integrate newcomers and remote > participants into the IETF. There are many projects running, some of them > in their early stages. We could do more, I am sure. Please give us some > concrete and constructive help. > > Mostly, We need to integrate old participants and old editors with new IETF inputs and more diversified community (top-to-bottom solution). I will do my best to help as you may know that I have done many discussions and helped in many issues. > > > Adrian > On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamywrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > At 23:57 26-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >> In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy >> to get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you >> are newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by >> industry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring? >> > > I leave it to other persons to answer the question about whether the IETF > is owned by industry. I don't know whether chairs or editors need training. All need training even CEOs as you see many organisations in the last ten years have closed because of big mistakes. So IMHO not only chairs but also ADs (it is not wrong/shameful to get extra training/assistance even if you are already an expert or the president). > However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a >> respond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need >> help/advise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised >> to support diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the >> real world community. >> > > Let's assume that I do not like a person. I can ignore the question which > the person asked if I know that the person cannot or will not do anything > about it. That person is free only when he owns his duty, but if that person has a duty owned by another person or any organisation, then that person is not free to ignore the question. I agree that the organisation draws the rule of the duty and responsibility, so I think IETF should consider diversity development into its responsibilities. > Please note that I do not think that it is a good idea to do that. It > is up to the person to ensure that he or she is not ignored. What would > you do if you are ignored? I think it is up to the organisation that runs/owns the work to help its staff do the better job with better guide. I think really it is IETF that is ignoring not the persons, I don't take work position into personal issues, it is not about like or hate, it is about clear guidance from organisations or leaders/management. > In case it is not obvious, I'll mention that I do a lot of research before > asking a question or commenting about an issue (e.g. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg07832.html ). IETF needs research on ignorance by management toward participants' input or toward discussions or toward IETF diversity. Overall, I am not crying wolf, but it is good to discuss this issue to help management, me and others in the IETF progress, because we all are part of it and all have truthful observations. AB > Regards, > S. Moonesamy --089e0158bfd0bf95f704ff793a22 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Adrian and Moonesamy,

On this list I hope we have som= e diversity rules/principles, as for me I try to forget=C2=A0if you are mal= e or female, and really does not matter on the list=C2=A0and will never hel= p only if the subject is gender to help related=C2=A0discussion. The reason= of my first discussion that in one WG I did not see consensus clear=C2=A0o= n list related to=C2=A0one draft which was adopted.=C2=A0

comment=C2=A0and=C2=A0discussing=C2=A0below, (I discuss= with you as diversity list participants, and without considering your back= ground of relationships/position/power/experience/gender/religion/culture/e= tc.),

On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Abdussalam,

=C2=A0

Your claims are significa= nt and need to be investigated.=C2=A0

Yes, I try my best to find real related issue= s to IETF diversity problem. I hope IETF help in investigation.=C2=A0
=
=C2=A0

But it is hard to work through them without = concrete evidence, yet it may also be hard to get such material without som= eone doing some analysis.

Yes, we may need a draft authored by diversified team inclu= ding all who were ignored in IETF, to describe reasons/issues and possible = solutions/recommendations.=C2=A0

- Real cases of remote pa= rticipants being ignored

There are real cases, that is why I discussed this,= just I think the reason is because of lack of diversity consideration with= in such responsibilities.=C2=A0=C2=A0The cases were in WGs in different dat= es and drafts:=C2=A0MANET, OSPF, 6Lo, I2RS, I don't go into details bec= ause I want to solve not damage relationships, we can do that privately if = IETF wants more.=C2=A0

- Issues with lack of understanding of IETF process<= u>

Also IETF may lack= understanding of customers and new generations of diverse=C2=A0community. Usually there are always common sense processes for all organi= sations, the lack of understanding the=C2=A0community=C2=A0common sense wil= l make management not achieve diversity in their community.=C2=A0

<= /p>

- False perception of bei= ng ignored

=C2=A0

It is a common sense iss= ue, ignored is ignored especially when we are in an organisation not in the= free=C2=A0street or free space/list/forum. IMHO=C2=A0Higher-positions in t= he=C2=A0organisation should not ignore within any relationship or discussio= n events.=C2=A0

Fundamentally, if someone= feels that they are being ignored the responsibility is shared. The commun= ity has a duty to not ignore; the chairs and document editors have a duty t= o make sure all issues are captured; and individuals (the ignored or the wi= tnesses) have a duty to flag specific incidents.

Yes, but first it is IET= F responsibility to not allow its positions to ignore parts or community or= parts of discussions/inputs. Let us start from up to bottom to solve, IMHO= it is not correct to solve from bottom especially when the management as n= ot enough diversified.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

The first case is, = of course, the most important. It can arise for many reasons, and we contin= ue to attempt to train the working group chairs to help them address some o= f these reasons. Obviously there is no magic to apply here, and chair train= ing will take time. Most recently, the chairs had a session in Toronto to d= iscuss ways of handling language and cultural issues, while the Routing ADs= have just put in place a program of training sessions for the chairs in th= e Routing Area. We would, of course, welcome insight about which issues nee= d special attention in training, but a shopping list only has limited value= : we may need more structured help developing topics and material for train= ing.

I am doing my part her i= n the list. IETF discussions and reminders are training to all community an= d to=C2=A0who allow change in their draft/work/life.=C2=A0However, IETF as = organisation=C2=A0needs to confirm that it is not allowing ignorance. I don= 't find a confirmation in its recommendations (I may be wrong). So mana= gement/editors of IETF are free to do ignorance.=C2=A0=C2=A0

=C2=A0

The second case is = a learning process. We can help by making material available to newcomers, = by being available as chairs, AD, and long-time IETFers, and through the ne= wly established mentors program. But lack of understanding of IETF process = and the normal mode of operation of the IETF can lead to the third case...<= u>

The second case is on bo= th sides, for management and participants. Both need training on diversity = considerations. Both need help, and IETF needs to be clear if it allows ign= orance or not (may be IETF can=C2=A0name it in a different word as silence = or not-reply action). Furthermore, that learning needs to be top-to-bottom.= =C2=A0

=C2=A0

It is important to = understand how to make effective contributions to the IETF and how some con= tributions will not get a response because they are essentially empty of co= nstructive input.=C2=A0

Any participant is part of IETF work when he posts ideas/advise, = so IETF should understand (its current and future=C2=A0management should un= derstand) that all diverse inputs=C2=A0should be reflected in the IETF deci= sions equally likely. The process becomes=C2=A0constructive when its power-= positions (chair, editor, AD)=C2=A0don't ignore any part of community/W= G.=C2=A0

Thus, if som= eone makes a comment like "You should write more about foo" then = the editor may agree or disagree, but it is clear that *someone* has to exp= and on the issues that need to be covered and to write the text. It is far = more constructive to break down the topic that needs to be addressed, to ex= plain why it needs to be covered, and to actually supply text. "Repeat= offenders" who demand that other people do work will find that their = comments start to be ignored to the point that even if they go on to make a= reasonable and helpful contribution no-one is reading their email any more= . That's a bad situation that we all have to work to improve.=

If any disagree they sho= uld respond, but editor/chair=C2=A0should not be in=C2=A0silent position.= =C2=A0=C2=A0The chair is to guide participants especially new comers and ol= d editors.=C2=A0we should make considerations=C2=A0clear so it becomes part= of our IETF culture. Also ADs/chairs=C2=A0are responsible to guide that cu= lture=C2=A0within all WG=C2=A0discussions and interactions.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0

=C2=A0

Let's take your= email on this thread as a direct example. You have raised some concerns vi= a an assertion that you have not substantiated with verifiable facts or eve= n anecdote. You have asked two questions that many feel are self-evident an= d don't need an answer. You end by saying "IETF should..." an= d you may be right, but you are not contributing to the solution. What are = the detailed actions you would like to see? How can those actions be achiev= ed? Who will contribute the work?

=C2=A0

This is a very impo= rtant topic, but I fear your email does nothing to further the state of the= art. Many of us are working hard (in our spare time, of course) to make it= easier to integrate newcomers and remote participants into the IETF. There= are many projects running, some of them in their early stages. We could do= more, I am sure. Please give us some concrete and constructive help.

Mostly,=C2=A0We need to = integrate old participants and old editors with new IETF=C2=A0inputs=C2=A0a= nd more diversified community (top-to-bottom solution). I will do my best t= o help as you may know that I have done many discussions and helped in many= issues.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Adrian


On Sunday, July 27, 2014, S Moonesamywrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
At 23:57 26-07-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
In IETF with its remote participation main work process, it is very easy to= get ignored/not-respond-to by WG chairs or WG editor specially if you are = newcomer or if you are an academic/student/etc. Is the IETF owned by indust= ry or companies? Or do chairs and editors need training/mentoring?

I leave it to other persons to answer the question about w= hether the IETF is owned by industry. =C2=A0I don't know whether chairs= or editors need training.

All need trainin= g even CEOs as you see many organisations in the last ten years have closed= because of big mistakes. So IMHO not only chairs but also ADs (it is not w= rong/shameful=C2=A0to get extra training/assistance=C2=A0even if=C2=A0you a= re already an expert or the president).=C2=A0


However, it is not correct to let that ignorance/non-response without a res= pond on the WG list, because they may have reasons or they may need help/ad= vise. Furthermore, IETF should solve this issue if it is organised to suppo= rt diversity and serious to involve more participants from all the real wor= ld community.

Let's assume that I do not like a person. =C2=A0I can = ignore the question which the person asked if I know that the person cannot= or will not do anything about it.

That person is free only when he owns his = duty, but if that person has a duty owned by another person or any organisa= tion, then that person is not free to ignore the question. I agree that the= organisation draws the rule of the duty and responsibility, so I think IET= F should consider diversity development into its responsibilities.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0Please note that I do not thi= nk that it is a good idea to do that. =C2=A0It is up to the person to ensur= e that he or she is not ignored. =C2=A0What would you do if you are ignored= ?

I think it is up to the organisation that runs/owns=C2= =A0the work=C2=A0to help its staff do the better job with better guide. I t= hink really it is IETF that is ignoring not the persons, I don't take w= ork position into personal issues, it is not about like or hate, it is abou= t clear guidance from organisations or leaders/management.=C2=A0


In case it is not obvious, I'll men= tion that I do a lot of research before asking a question or commenting abo= ut an issue (e.g.=C2=A0http://www.ietf.org/mail-= archive/web/ietf-smtp/current/msg07832.html=C2=A0).

IETF needs research on ignorance by management toward p= articipants' input or toward discussions or toward IETF diversity.=C2= =A0

Overall, I am not crying wolf, but=C2=A0it is = good to discuss this issue to help management, me=C2=A0and others in the=C2= =A0IETF progress,=C2=A0because we all are part of it and all have truthful = observations.=C2=A0

AB


Regards, S. Moonesamy =C2=A0
--089e0158bfd0bf95f704ff793a22-- From nobody Thu Jul 31 11:21:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506BD1A0303 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:21:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.991 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HlDF1DyX2I2v for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124791A0271 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.157.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6VIKlsQ014315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:20:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406830860; x=1406917260; bh=OKw5im2NB0r4gftdqMzzWHRof/HYPXQS0paEtMy1mKs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YKiCu2RJkAQFp/Z9HBibTLX9sSTn97zTGZEuw88h1ZyW2Zse+faXeeooe5WPHpKR5 1uBIKQLJ0o2M71SfpvJm5AzJungZrM1j5303OVCnb463/F9hoW1kZBHdNg6sC9jRpl AkBvso0jk7HVWn8pJnSO/hgqYo0SLOVNDmNaEYws= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406830860; x=1406917260; i=@elandsys.com; bh=OKw5im2NB0r4gftdqMzzWHRof/HYPXQS0paEtMy1mKs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=kotEv220QSDTjzprHp5Uq2D1C+X3++J/jAvZBTkTem8+q/itLpcA7UEIVQQ8HjZBb GilRtEqXFkPiGIh0OK0gMxFpv0MToC01HanscFEbczQXUJWtSCm9fjtCQC28fW41lH +Az9TwF8PrrG2djFlxkcA6PvgWBBkazgzOq1RBBw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140731063247.0cd528e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:21:00 -0700 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/6KvGEymxyX2EZYpFS_yKU8QOCNo Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:21:11 -0000 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. >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. >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. >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 ietf@ietf.org mailing list there would be some impolite comments. 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. >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 >If any disagree they should respond, but editor/chair should not be >in silent position. The chair is to guide participants especially >new comers and old editors. we should make considerations clear so >it becomes part of our IETF culture. Also ADs/chairs are responsible >to guide that culture within all WG discussions and interactions. If I understood correctly, the problem is that an editor or Working Group Chair has ignored comments from a participant in which he or she disagreed with the editor or the Working Group Chair. The participant did not contact the Working Group Chair or the Responsible Area Director to complain that he or she has been ignored. The participant did not post any objection to the mailing list. Another problem is that the participant does not have a good understanding of the IETF process, i.e. he or she does not know that it is possible to contact the Working Group Chair or Responsible Area Director to complain about the problem. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Jul 31 12:34:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5C21A008B for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:34:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmYdOErloTYa for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x231.google.com (mail-qa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E74481A0084 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id dc16so2783977qab.8 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:34:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zqEmxusVkm0YPyBvsG//phAz780kYps6C5o/aL3J6LQ=; b=BKIHXC2HJ4CnK6SSWUu197KyeXClaZ1qx+PGK15W0kcWhPDa64TYD6/3goGrDn7+BV yTN5VZbefdjzgXPNZzv9f3VRRiijYyK8ORvrBlzIRi99NM3ity9m05BrRRQLgMf6yzoU LU5/RY1kVgB30TLw/CTmTNTrjHOrz8xNmbfPrEUCk7N9lk929YptWeibeIR//D71B567 COyRabO85wKsZJfQEjpCdNLIw5QJcxZ78NdfHm6rYblaMt0QuCQrOJLdPjsTSqU5wGqx gWr2vnCDYe6K6x/GsogkPT3sYLGLaGrdRjq8HUqKZVG74ZelXFzoiEKXRoW9MEGZbsb9 VpHQ== X-Received: by 10.229.59.67 with SMTP id k3mr581783qch.26.1406835269787; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (209-6-114-252.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com. [209.6.114.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m20sm11029566qax.25.2014.07.31.12.34.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:34:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140731063247.0cd528e0@elandnews.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:34:27 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1C8B79BE-623E-4DE2-9507-DB9D0511E900@gmail.com> References: <080401cfa981$e3ea1d40$abbe57c0$@olddog.co.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20140731063247.0cd528e0@elandnews.com> To: S Moonesamy Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/QmhXxZ5KSqfdv5Jcp-OOKYEp0PU Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: [Diversity] Ignored by WG chairs or WG editors X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:34:33 -0000 Hello, Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:21 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: >=20 > 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 t= ry to forget if you are male or female, and really does not matter on the li= st and will never help only if the subject is gender to help related discuss= ion. The reason of my first discussion that in one WG I did not see consensu= s clear on list related to one draft which was adopted. >=20 > Thanks for explaining the above. RFC 7221 discusses about the handling of= Internet-Drafts by working groups. >=20 > In theory, anyone can raise an objection if, for example, the Working Grou= p Chair says that there is consensus when there isn't. In practice, there a= re only a few persons who will do that. I'd also like to understand if there was a poll conducted in a meeting that w= as then followed by the poll on list that you mention. If that's the case, c= onsensus may have been clear and then was followed up on list to allow other= s who did not attend to participate. This could make the poll in email appe= ar much different than the full poll that could have had many people partici= pating. They would not have responded on list as they already provided a re= sponse (hum, hand in air, etc.). You should be able to verify this in meeti= ng minutes or through the recording in the worst case scenario. >=20 >> comment and discussing below, (I discuss with you as diversity list parti= cipants, and without considering your background of relationships/position/p= ower/experience/gender/religion/culture/etc.), >=20 > Ok. >=20 >> Yes, we may need a draft authored by diversified team including all who w= ere ignored in IETF, to describe reasons/issues and possible solutions/recom= mendations. >=20 > It is not possible to do that if nobody volunteers to write the draft and n= obody comes forward and say that they have been ignored. >=20 >> There are real cases, that is why I discussed this, just I think the reas= on is because of lack of diversity consideration within such responsibilitie= s. The cases were in WGs in different dates and drafts: MANET, OSPF, 6Lo, I= 2RS, I don't go into details because I want to solve not damage relationship= s, we can do that privately if IETF wants more. >=20 > It will unfortunately damage relationships. >=20 >> I am doing my part her in the list. IETF discussions and reminders are tr= aining to all community and to who allow change in their draft/work/life. Ho= wever, IETF as organisation needs to confirm that it is not allowing ignoran= ce. I don't find a confirmation in its recommendations (I may be wrong). So m= anagement/editors of IETF are free to do ignorance. >=20 > 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 wi= ll consider it as a negative comment. If this discussion was on the ietf@ie= tf.org mailing list there would be some impolite comments. >=20 > I'll quote a few comments from the last plenary without mentioning the nam= es of the persons: >=20 > "Several of us have the experience of many participants not being willing= to engage > because of the heat of some of the participants." >=20 > "I stopped reading the IETF list years ago, because I don't like being sc= olded by > people who don't have a clue. Although our official position is that wo= rk gets > done on mailing lists, people who don't show up to the meetings really h= ave great > difficulty interacting with others. And I don't have the time to deal w= ith that." >=20 > "It's far more important to retain [removed] on the list than to get 35 n= ewbies." >=20 > "You have to search back through the chain of posts to find out what the c= onversation > is, and to understand whether they are talking about." >=20 > "different participants are looking for different things from the mailing= list." >=20 > "Being attacked from all sides, not defending yourself would be perceived= as a > sign of weakness." >=20 > There is a wide range of opinions about what the IETF community would like= to change. >=20 My take-away from that discussion was that the IETF list could continue as-i= s with the group of people who like that forum and newcomers would likely pr= efer alternate solutions, including social interfaces anyway. If we wanted t= o make sure you could get all the information in one place, a summary from t= he social site could be periodically sent to the list. Just a thought and a possible way forward (I'm sure there are other good opt= ions too that will be discussed). >> The second case is on both sides, for management and participants. Both n= eed training on diversity considerations. Both need help, and IETF needs to b= e clear if it allows ignorance or not (may be IETF can name it in a differen= t word as silence or not-reply action). Furthermore, that learning needs to b= e top-to-bottom. >=20 > What are the diversity considerations? Is it about taking into considerat= ion: >=20 > (a) relationships >=20 > (b) position >=20 > (c) experience >=20 > (d) gender >=20 > (e) religion >=20 > (f) culture I'd say it's important to all, not just top - bottom as the IETF evolves wit= h annual leadership changes. =20 Thanks, Kathleen=20 >=20 >> If any disagree they should respond, but editor/chair should not be in si= lent position. The chair is to guide participants especially new comers and= old editors. we should make considerations clear so it becomes part of our I= ETF culture. Also ADs/chairs are responsible to guide that culture within al= l WG discussions and interactions. >=20 > If I understood correctly, the problem is that an editor or Working Group C= hair has ignored comments from a participant in which he or she disagreed wi= th the editor or the Working Group Chair. The participant did not contact t= he Working Group Chair or the Responsible Area Director to complain that he o= r she has been ignored. The participant did not post any objection to the m= ailing list. Another problem is that the participant does not have a good u= nderstanding of the IETF process, i.e. he or she does not know that it is po= ssible to contact the Working Group Chair or Responsible Area Director to co= mplain about the problem. >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy =20 > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity