From nobody Sun Apr 5 17:46:27 2015 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 B88971ACEA6 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:46:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 9ugwyynaOxMH for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E733B1ACEA5 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t360k6gB005673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:46:09 -0700 Message-ID: <5521D749.20600@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:46:01 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150319022613.1094bd48@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20150319022613.1094bd48@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: Narelle Clark , diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01 X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 00:46:26 -0000 SM, (Any items not commented on below, from your note, seem to be suggestions for specific changes that are straightforward and, of course, reasonable.) On 3/19/2015 5:06 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > I read the Introduction section. It is well-written and it looks good. > The following text caught my attention: > > "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention > to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional > demeanor." > > I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF > attention" was not clear to me. From the above response I'll pick the > following: > > (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF) > > (b) bullying and harassment > > I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that the > average reader can easily understand that the central issues are (b) and > the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b). If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful. My own inclination was (and is) to rely on the table of contents to lay that out, if the reader cannot wait to read the text that follows. > In the Introduction Section: > > 'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process. Nomcom is itself a potentially > diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.' > > If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue: > > "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high > number of female candidates, not a single one was selected." Please explain your basis for asserting that. Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact of what actually happened. It's reporting, not analysis. > Quoting text from the draft: > > "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen > as reflecting IETF culture generally." > > That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor > "well-funded, American, white, male engineers". You are taking a description of the early days of the Arpanet research community and applying it to current IETF operations. The draft never makes nor intends that linkage, particularly since the current population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet days. > The current IESG > members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html There are > three female members. The female members are well-funded, American and > white. Is it the opinion of the authors that "much diversity" is about > the male and female question only? The draft offers, implies and intends no such opinion. For example: > Section 2.1 mentions several other > variables. However, the rest of the draft does not contain any > discussion about those variables. The draft is intended to focus on the importance of variety. It does that. The draft is not intended to be a general tutorial about the vast array of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group. > The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional > Conduct". Section 2.2 is about professional conduct. Section 3 and > Section 4 are about participation. I suggest following a "participation > and professional conduct" angle as the content of the draft does not > discuss about economic status or demographics. I do not understand what changes you are proposing, nor the problems with the draft that these would fix. Please be specific. > From Section 3.2: > > "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse > contribution for further development. Engagement means that it easy > for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously through > constructive interaction." > > Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider > input. The above explains it as "making it easy for existing > participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions". You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement. The text is meant to cover both external and internal, though the 'to be heard' has a clear focus on internal. That is, folks already attempting to participate. > Section 5 is about security considerations. How would the IETF be > affected if it is no longer viewed as: > > (a) a credible open venue > > (b) a credible productive venue > > (c) a venue where there is diversity Please offer specific text. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sun Apr 5 20:50:49 2015 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 0F6291A00C2 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 20:50:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 tmnXX69-m1l8 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 20:50:47 -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 5BEC21A00C0 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2015 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.196.64]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t363oSPU003367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 5 Apr 2015 20:50:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1428292241; x=1428378641; bh=0G0rHG4qR4LKWsa5UZwJ1yio4C/NePFR1UkH8sJ9Ovg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=oJR8fhK6WGU4OWRpZL0ssnIYvhXg7uZqly79UCbupiRwZCH2oxZBPnqHMBkV7r713 aUJzgpRrzmreIxdDoxY5tOb1XbuXqRcZRck5zj5uABvuspaFtvUIqSIDoL1FOX7plN L+lvlHFupsxluUCnRYmhaRZLRJ7UeCSLae04dSjA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1428292241; x=1428378641; i=@elandsys.com; bh=0G0rHG4qR4LKWsa5UZwJ1yio4C/NePFR1UkH8sJ9Ovg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=OSwOa+VNpLmGWFZ0rYOWXy0S1eY7f6p9oqJRs2dwx4Qr3n2Q3V/HPwDxJBXu1wkZ4 uFFg+0qI4wdhKW+bxRWAMwIPFfH5mxFkbVARESjDMahZGN8LTPiT04COmY28T0OeNz tKYUohFdIYX19Dj1M5QojceAqc0Zhb5nkoL+objI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20150405200817.0d8aaf78@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:49:53 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <5521D749.20600@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150319022613.1094bd48@elandnews.com> <5521D749.20600@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: Narelle Clark , diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01 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, 06 Apr 2015 03:50:49 -0000 Hi Dave, At 17:46 05-04-2015, Dave Crocker wrote: >(Any items not commented on below, from your note, seem to be >suggestions for specific changes that are straightforward and, of >course, reasonable.) Thanks. I'll comment below. >On 3/19/2015 5:06 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > I read the Introduction section. It is well-written and it looks good. > > The following text caught my attention: > > > > "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention > > to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional > > demeanor." > > > > I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF > > attention" was not clear to me. From the above response I'll pick the > > following: > > > > (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF) > > > > (b) bullying and harassment > > > > I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that the > > average reader can easily understand that the central issues are (b) and > > the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b). > >If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful. OLD This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional demeanor. NEW This document discusses about professional conduct and participation in the IETF in respect to diversity. As a comment about the above, I kept the sentence short and avoided "nature and practicalities" as it may be, in my personal opinion, unclear to an average reader. Please feel free to edit it as you might be able to find something better than what I suggested. >My own inclination was (and is) to rely on the table of contents to lay >that out, if the reader cannot wait to read the text that follows. Ok. > > In the Introduction Section: > > > > 'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process. Nomcom is itself a potentially > > diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.' > > > > If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue: > > > > "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high > > number of female candidates, not a single one was selected." > >Please explain your basis for asserting that. If a group is diverse it would likely have some female members. The fact that there wasn't any women selected could mean: (i) There isn't any diversity problem with the group (ii) There was a diversity problem and that explains why no woman was selected. >Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact >of what actually happened. It's reporting, not analysis. Yes. However, the document might be saying (i) or (ii). > > Quoting text from the draft: > > > > "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen > > as reflecting IETF culture generally." > > > > That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor > > "well-funded, American, white, male engineers". > >You are taking a description of the early days of the Arpanet research >community and applying it to current IETF operations. The draft never >makes nor intends that linkage, particularly since the current >population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet days. That is the linkage which the average reader will do. > > The current IESG > > members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html There are > > three female members. The female members are well-funded, American and > > white. Is it the opinion of the authors that "much diversity" is about > > the male and female question only? > >The draft offers, implies and intends no such opinion. Ok. >For example: > > Section 2.1 mentions several other > > variables. However, the rest of the draft does not contain any > > discussion about those variables. > >The draft is intended to focus on the importance of variety. It does that. > >The draft is not intended to be a general tutorial about the vast array >of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group. Ok. > > The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional > > Conduct". Section 2.2 is about professional conduct. Section 3 and > > Section 4 are about participation. I suggest following a "participation > > and professional conduct" angle as the content of the draft does not > > discuss about economic status or demographics. > >I do not understand what changes you are proposing, nor the problems >with the draft that these would fix. Please be specific. What I meant was that the draft's title has "much diversity while one example in the draft is about women; the harassment as discussed in the IETF has been mainly about sexual harassment. I don't think that it would be fair to ask the authors of this draft to discuss the other problems. I'll say ok to the above. > > From Section 3.2: > > > > "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse > > contribution for further development. Engagement means that it easy > > for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously through > > constructive interaction." > > > > Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider > > input. The above explains it as "making it easy for existing > > participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions". > >You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement. Yes. >The text is meant to cover both external and internal, though the 'to be >heard' has a clear focus on internal. That is, folks already attempting >to participate. This is where the question of the target audience (of the draft) arises. Is it for people familiar with the IETF or is it for a wider audience? For the latter, people will likely read "engagement" as meaning what I described as externally-oriented engagement. > > Section 5 is about security considerations. How would the IETF be > > affected if it is no longer viewed as: > > > > (a) a credible open venue > > > > (b) a credible productive venue > > > > (c) a venue where there is diversity > >Please offer specific text. The above points are based on the following text in the draft: "The security of the IETF's role in the Internet community depends upon its credibility as an open and productive venue for collaborative development of technical documents." It is up to the authors to address those points. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Mon Apr 6 07:49:02 2015 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 D3C341A892C for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 xOay4UdN6nlp for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EC4C1A891A for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t36EmdJX029636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:48:44 -0700 Message-ID: <55229CC5.9000903@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 07:48:37 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150319022613.1094bd48@elandnews.com> <5521D749.20600@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150405200817.0d8aaf78@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20150405200817.0d8aaf78@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 06 Apr 2015 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: Narelle Clark , Nevil Brownlee , diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01 X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:49:01 -0000 On 4/5/2015 8:49 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> On 3/19/2015 5:06 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> > I read the Introduction section. It is well-written and it looks good. >> > The following text caught my attention: >> > >> > "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention >> > to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional >> > demeanor." >> > >> > I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF >> > attention" was not clear to me. From the above response I'll pick the >> > following: >> > >> > (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF) >> > >> > (b) bullying and harassment >> > >> > I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that the >> > average reader can easily understand that the central issues are (b) >> and >> > the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b). >> >> If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful. > > OLD > > This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention > to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional > demeanor. > > NEW > > This document discusses about professional conduct and participation > in the IETF in respect to diversity. > As a comment about the above, I kept the sentence short and avoided > "nature and practicalities" as it may be, in my personal opinion, > unclear to an average reader. Please feel free to edit it as you might > be able to find something better than what I suggested. Your explanation gives less information about what the scope of the paper. So, I suggest instead: This paper discusses IETF diversity, in terms of the nature of diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it. >> > In the Introduction Section: >> > >> > 'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process. Nomcom is itself a potentially >> > diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.' >> > >> > If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue: >> > >> > "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high >> > number of female candidates, not a single one was selected." >> >> Please explain your basis for asserting that. > > If a group is diverse it would likely have some female members. The It might and it might not. In the second paragraph of 2.1 the paper explicitly makes the point that evaluating diversity in the IETF according to specific attributes is problematic. Rather, we need to look for meaningful diversity of any kind (or, perhaps, multiple and diverse kinds.) > fact that there wasn't any women selected could mean: > > (i) There isn't any diversity problem with the group > > (ii) There was a diversity problem and that explains why > no woman was selected. > >> Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact >> of what actually happened. It's reporting, not analysis. > > Yes. However, the document might be saying (i) or (ii). Those choices exist for every possible attribute one might consider, when looking at an IETF group. And the list of possible attributes is closer to infinite than to small. >> > Quoting text from the draft: >> > >> > "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be >> seen >> > as reflecting IETF culture generally." >> > >> > That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor >> > "well-funded, American, white, male engineers". >> >> You are taking a description of the early days of the Arpanet research >> community and applying it to current IETF operations. The draft never >> makes nor intends that linkage, particularly since the current >> population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet >> days. > > That is the linkage which the average reader will do. Your invoking that text from Introduction is problematic on two counts. The first is that its use in the Introduction is in terms of the past tense. The second is that the first paragraph of Section 2.1 establishes a broader and more basic scope for considering diversity in the IETF. You appear to be ignoring it. >> For example: >> > Section 2.1 mentions several other >> > variables. However, the rest of the draft does not contain any >> > discussion about those variables. >> >> The draft is intended to focus on the importance of variety. It does >> that. >> >> The draft is not intended to be a general tutorial about the vast array >> of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group. > > Ok. > >> > The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional >> > Conduct". Section 2.2 is about professional conduct. Section 3 and >> > Section 4 are about participation. I suggest following a >> "participation >> > and professional conduct" angle as the content of the draft does not >> > discuss about economic status or demographics. >> >> I do not understand what changes you are proposing, nor the problems >> with the draft that these would fix. Please be specific. > > What I meant was that the draft's title has "much diversity while one > example in the draft is about women; the harassment as discussed in the > IETF has been mainly about sexual harassment. I don't think that it > would be fair to ask the authors of this draft to discuss the other > problems. I'll say ok to the above. The draft does not discuss /any/ form of harassment in detail, including sexual harassment. The draft is not attempting to summarize or even to particularly reflect the IETF's discussion of harassment. >> > From Section 3.2: >> > >> > "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse >> > contribution for further development. Engagement means that it easy >> > for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously >> through >> > constructive interaction." >> > >> > Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider >> > input. The above explains it as "making it easy for existing >> > participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions". >> >> You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement. > > Yes. > >> The text is meant to cover both external and internal, though the 'to be >> heard' has a clear focus on internal. That is, folks already attempting >> to participate. > > This is where the question of the target audience (of the draft) > arises. Is it for people familiar with the IETF or is it for a wider > audience? For the latter, people will likely read "engagement" as > meaning what I described as externally-oriented engagement. I've no idea what your basis for saying that is. First, the word is regularly used to refer variously to external and internal engagement. For example in the American Red Cross there is reference to Community Engagement and to Volunteer Engagement, pointing outward and inward respectively. In any event, the second paragraph of Section 3.2, the draft says explicitly what it means in the use here. So the use within the document is clear. >> > Section 5 is about security considerations. How would the IETF be >> > affected if it is no longer viewed as: >> > >> > (a) a credible open venue >> > >> > (b) a credible productive venue >> > >> > (c) a venue where there is diversity >> >> Please offer specific text. > > The above points are based on the following text in the draft: > > "The security of the IETF's role in the Internet community depends > upon its credibility as an open and productive venue for > collaborative development of technical documents." > > It is up to the authors to address those points. Actually, it up to the IETF. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Tue Apr 14 08:13:28 2015 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 68ED91B2C9C for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 mEynCZTDKktp for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF0C1B2C92 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3EFBvLa003801 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:12:04 -0700 Message-ID: <552D2E37.9020106@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:11:51 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "diversity@ietf.org" References: <20150414144906.28040.23605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150414144906.28040.23605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20150414144906.28040.23605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Diversity] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:13:27 -0000 G'day. There's a revision to the draft, based on comments from SM and Narelle. Note the diff link, to see the few changes. d/ -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:49:06 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Narelle Clark , Narelle Clark , Dave Crocker , Dave Crocker A new version of I-D, draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Dave Crocker and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-crocker-diversity-conduct Revision: 03 Title: An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional Conduct Document date: 2015-04-14 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 16 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03 Abstract: The process of producing today's Internet through a culture of open participation and diverse collaboration has proved strikingly efficient and effective, and it is distinctive among standards organizations. For its early years, participation in the IETF and its antecedent was almost entirely composed of well-funded, American, white, male engineers, establishing a distinctive and challenging group dynamic, both in management and in personal interactions. In the case of the IETF, interaction style can often demonstrate singularly aggressive behavior, often including singularly hostile tone and content. Groups with greater diversity make better decisions. Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than generic good will and statements of principle. Many different behaviors can serve to reduce participant diversity or participation diversity. This paper discusses IETF participation, in terms of the nature of diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Tue Apr 14 15:33:04 2015 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 2D0ED1B300E for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:33:03 -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 h4ZEteZpuT9r for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C0AB1B300A for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qku63 with SMTP id 63so43459388qku.3 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:32:59 -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=9sb5SgoiUcZq30udC0dpghzU90DxLl4xUGxdKYwi4/Q=; b=SfYnpyvsFYLyBaj51Wv8Q4vqkyuK6fqc7JEzZ2FyB/zcMu8MNibmBneWAm8gMJQqY5 3YV+f4uFNZMIPVE5EjNZTF4qlk39CsKf2EfgaxHl40gFptYXJznxEaECxvZ2hxW3Ace8 AEQa96ZLdeTByOGFhZHlgNOKdG/L13IAg5Tg3Osjj/s0HLIgwpg0NlqW9OP3m+FJTgOS mwcXJg76lAK/FvGPfgwdOLSiafkUO4WaWd0rM4ZrQWBQo4/zjik4Vwtj3O7wpL62Nvet nymuWxOOD05VLf6COIZU03XshYEXAju87XSI6lzF11V3WoibgwPj/nuwjeWxq5bYU7vL VU/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.135.207 with SMTP id 198mr28632696qhh.71.1429050779808; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.84.111 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:32:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <552D2E37.9020106@dcrocker.net> References: <20150414144906.28040.23605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <552D2E37.9020106@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:32:59 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135dfa218bc400513b6d0b4 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt 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: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:03 -0000 --001a1135dfa218bc400513b6d0b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I like the draft, and thanks. I am not sure if the author will accept my comments in future. In my opinion the author did not answer in far past to my comments so I don't review the revisions. However, your draft needs diverse reviews as well do WG drafts. AB On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Dave Crocker wrote: > G'day. > > There's a revision to the draft, based on comments from SM and Narelle. > Note the diff link, to see the few changes. > > d/ > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt > Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:49:06 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: Narelle Clark >, Narelle > Clark > >, Dave Crocker < > dcrocker@bbiw.net >, Dave > Crocker > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt > has been successfully submitted by Dave Crocker and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-crocker-diversity-conduct > Revision: 03 > Title: An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional Conduct > Document date: 2015-04-14 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 16 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct/ > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03 > Diff: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03 > > Abstract: > The process of producing today's Internet through a culture of open > participation and diverse collaboration has proved strikingly > efficient and effective, and it is distinctive among standards > organizations. For its early years, participation in the IETF and > its antecedent was almost entirely composed of well-funded, American, > white, male engineers, establishing a distinctive and challenging > group dynamic, both in management and in personal interactions. In > the case of the IETF, interaction style can often demonstrate > singularly aggressive behavior, often including singularly hostile > tone and content. Groups with greater diversity make better > decisions. Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more than generic > good will and statements of principle. Many different behaviors can > serve to reduce participant diversity or participation diversity. > This paper discusses IETF participation, in terms of the nature of > diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it. > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > --001a1135dfa218bc400513b6d0b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I like the draft, and thanks. I=C2=A0am not sure if the author will=C2=A0ac= cept my comments in future. In=C2=A0my opinion the author=C2=A0did not answ= er in far past to my comments so I don't review the=C2=A0revisions. How= ever, your draft needs diverse reviews as well do WG drafts.=C2=A0

=
AB

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
G'day.

There's a revision to the draft, based on comments from SM and Narelle.=
=C2=A0Note the diff link, to see the few changes.

d/
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.tx= t
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:49:06 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: Narelle Clark <narelle.clark@pavonis.com= .au>, Narelle Clark
<narelle.clark@pavonis.com.au>, Dave = Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Dave
Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>


A new version of I-D, draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dave Crocker and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-crocker-diversity-condu= ct
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A003
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 An IETF with Much Diversity and Pr= ofessional Conduct
Document date:=C2=A0 2015-04-14
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 16
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cro= cker-diversity-conduct-03.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-diversi= ty-conduct/
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-diversity-conduct= -03
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-crocker-d= iversity-conduct-03

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The process of producing today's Internet through a cultur= e of open
=C2=A0 =C2=A0participation and diverse collaboration has proved strikingly<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0efficient and effective, and it is distinctive among standards=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0organizations.=C2=A0 For its early years, participation in the= IETF and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0its antecedent was almost entirely composed of well-funded, Am= erican,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0white, male engineers, establishing a distinctive and challeng= ing
=C2=A0 =C2=A0group dynamic, both in management and in personal interactions= .=C2=A0 In
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the case of the IETF, interaction style can often demonstrate<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0singularly aggressive behavior, often including singularly hos= tile
=C2=A0 =C2=A0tone and content.=C2=A0 Groups with greater diversity make bet= ter
=C2=A0 =C2=A0decisions.=C2=A0 Obtaining meaningful diversity requires more = than generic
=C2=A0 =C2=A0good will and statements of principle.=C2=A0 Many different be= haviors can
=C2=A0 =C2=A0serve to reduce participant diversity or participation diversi= ty.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This paper discusses IETF participation, in terms of the natur= e of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease i= t.





Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat



--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net



--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
diversity mailing list
diversity@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
--001a1135dfa218bc400513b6d0b4-- From nobody Tue Apr 14 22:33:45 2015 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 DE84F1B310C for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 mazO9bDEQHPI for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5412B1B310B for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3F5XZUA008381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:40 -0700 Message-ID: <552DF82E.3060808@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:34 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Abdussalam Baryun References: <20150414144906.28040.23605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <552D2E37.9020106@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:33:44 -0000 On 4/14/2015 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > In my opinion the author did not answer in far past to my comment The only change you suggested was to correct a typo, from "It's" to Its". The error was corrected and the nature of the error did not warrant burdening the list. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Apr 17 13:43:15 2015 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 738CF1A8889 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:43:13 -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 NZDIvuR7nTaH for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ACD21A871F for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgfi89 with SMTP id i89so27537733qgf.1 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:43:08 -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=8vLxmew7WmULFUz8/+0w76Ag2b9vCq7lC/0LcM/R0B4=; b=gdf/JJYtrmeSwF21eQocJxXM2txSNRspzQmEWaCioAu2OOV7AB0c3XKkQVMHBxaTRR 8XoNucLqHTJhrYxXa7lMMu8zAGLG11BSbdVoJFSxocP8Azi0zwyYJUbbucM1EWHdxTj6 RF/pDJ2w2Hmr3i+o1BoUWHZ96IDBV/0twv3wpR68f1dSNva/HHg5IZN7Exqy9oDG9uKq uA7pRmQGfSN0HM2SL84calNssjwg9cjzQxoXzQz1sNfHPnTJLWR6QKNY+q7iSpFmaWLi LGtJBKRucUV7aSvatgIXRnhGwOoSkjgByJ5L1metkjFw5IRP32naoHhIfI7ciiIicP0O vBPQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.22.170 with SMTP id 42mr9343209qkw.47.1429303388810; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.84.111 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <552DF82E.3060808@dcrocker.net> References: <20150414144906.28040.23605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <552D2E37.9020106@dcrocker.net> <552DF82E.3060808@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:43:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Dave Crocker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11495a10c436e20513f1a065 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-03.txt 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: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:43:13 -0000 --001a11495a10c436e20513f1a065 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, IMHO, the list needs discussions (the diversity list has no discussion or no much work or has not much diverse) because it is a discussion list, so burdening the list is needed for work to be progressed or followed up. Any message/reply related to a draft should be ok to be submitted to the list. If authors don't reply to reviewers, IMHO, it discourages discussions and further reviews. My review procedure is to note the drafts that has no replies and wait for the IESG request so I can put through my final review without burdening my volunteering. However, that is not best practice but that was caused by authors and editors that don't reply to volunteers. Thank for the reply, I commented on 6 March to diversity list address and to your personal email address related to the draft you submitted draft-00, so I only seen author replied to SM's comment (may be the author only replies to who author knows, is that diversity!!!!!!!!). My question was why the author is not replying to me, am I not accepted by the authors? or did I do something wrong, or may be my english was not perfect, or am I from other type of group?. I noticed in my experience in IETF that groups reply only to known groups/persons, it is mostly driven by selective-groups not WGs. However, I did ask questions and I did disagree on the list, to some texts the draft-00 is addressing. I waited for some time, because once I was told by one ietf-WG chair that authors are bussy, so I give about one month to three for replies. Any way I am happy that I got a reply from you because I wanted to meet you in IETF89 meeting but failed to find you. However, as I got a reply now I can continue now to review (I will repeat my comments if needed). Thanks for your work, AB On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 4/14/2015 3:32 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > In my opinion the author did not answer in far past to my comment > > > The only change you suggested was to correct a typo, from "It's" to > Its". The error was corrected and the nature of the error did not > warrant burdening the list. > I thought I gave comments and disagreed with issues in draft-00, please see 6 March. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > --001a11495a10c436e20513f1a065 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

IMHO, the list need= s discussions (the diversity list has no discussion or no much work or has = not much diverse) because it is a discussion list, so burdening the list is= needed for work to be progressed or followed up. Any message/reply related= to a draft should be ok to be submitted to the list. If authors don't = reply to reviewers, IMHO, it discourages discussions and further reviews. M= y review procedure is to note the drafts that has no replies and wait for t= he IESG request so I can put through my final review without burdening my v= olunteering. However, that is not best practice but that was caused by auth= ors and editors that don't reply to=C2=A0volunteers.=C2=A0
Thank for the reply, I commented on 6 March to diversity list = address and to=C2=A0your personal email address related to=C2=A0the draft y= ou submitted draft-00, so I only seen=C2=A0author replied to SM's comme= nt (may be the author only replies to who author knows, is that diversity!!= !!!!!!). My question was why the author is not replying to me, am I not=C2= =A0accepted by the authors? or did I do something=C2=A0wrong, or may be my = english was not perfect, or am I from other type of group?. I noticed in my= experience in=C2=A0IETF that groups reply only to known groups/persons, it= is mostly driven by selective-groups not WGs.=C2=A0However, I did ask ques= tions and I did disagree on the list,=C2=A0to some=C2=A0texts the draft-00 = is addressing. I waited for some time, because once I was told by one ietf-= WG chair that authors are bussy, so I give about one month to three for rep= lies. Any way I am happy that I got=C2=A0 a reply from you because I wanted= to meet you in IETF89 meeting =C2=A0but failed to find you. However, as I = got a reply now I can continue now to review (I will repeat my comments if = needed).


Thanks for your work,

AB


On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dc= rocker.net> wrote:
On 4/14/2015 3:3= 2 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> In my opinion the author did not answer in far past to my comment


The only change you suggested was to correct a typo, from "It&#= 39;s" to
Its".=C2=A0 The error was corrected and the nature of the error did no= t
warrant burdening the list.

I thought I= gave comments and disagreed with issues in draft-00, please see 6 March.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

--001a11495a10c436e20513f1a065-- From nobody Thu Apr 23 22:58:41 2015 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 634521B2DFE; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:58:28 -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 Ob2ghqwfIA-5; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75D731B2DF7; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qkhg7 with SMTP id g7so24328109qkh.2; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:58:07 -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=T7cdAUxK0VHoievex2ucOMIy1AD93TCXN0/M9XvadYA=; b=BVp5p+KJxadBAgRgJ7JFXa8kGTwcUEGNf+T9sd0Cfc7j/ONP9lbVU+PEhQHT6wflMY Uk9aacyU7N1rnK+g37fPquWpd2r7479mMRvhNsN0K1SUE+SAASwQtHeX8IaLblWRKMN/ Jkj6AuglE2vw4jodiA91EkakJ89kHY6X9Iy5z1uDZcpbOsyJ9MnHhxsEsXf+6BSuP2vc DkO06fAS7E4IUtH5YrITpr5fdqsG1s9i+3ue22BiiRKmbA2g6/cSogE8/BLtopCPDbuE o0srCQ+e7LjmM3AnA6RCsixJr5jXmFO/BCFPV8Iv8WD1yGYMHf65lVEYnEVMa7Vlo3rN FZjw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.104.1 with SMTP id z1mr7399727qge.76.1429855087760; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.84.105 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:58:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55387027.9050607@gmail.com> References: <20150423025530.10943.qmail@ary.lan> <55387027.9050607@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:58:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135366c961c860514721430 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity-dt@ietf.org" , "diversity@ietf.org" , IETF Chair Subject: Re: [Diversity] What's an author? [was: Re: Policy and tools regarding the filing of Internet Drafts] 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: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:58:28 -0000 --001a1135366c961c860514721430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Brian, Thanks for your contribution. I support the draft, but just did not put it on the IETF-list because one general-area-participant (which may not understood diversity) is always writing replies to mine with no sense or making jokes while I am trying to do serious work for ietf general area. Are we in IETF will organised? IMHO, as a person from Africa, we need this draft- work in the general area and to support also diversity in IETF work (hope all authors allow diversity). IMHO, many authors have no guide and they seem to ignore posts (and if we complain which usually does not happen, they can say we are busy, but most don't complain because they are more busy, but is IETF following that?) to reduce discussions so they can get their work through quickly without real-reviews. Suggest that we include in the draft more about diversity as an author style/acceptance, because authoring for IETF is all about being diverse and welcoming best ideas and amendments to the IETF work/draft. Best Regards AB This message was CC to AD of General Area. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > To some extent this thread has been ducking the question that lies behind > it. > What is an author, in the IETF context? There's no short answer, so here's > a draft of a long answer. If people think it's useful, I can author an > I-D about it... > > Scope > > These guidelines are aimed at Internet-Drafts in the IETF publication > stream. > They are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's style guide > (RFC7322) > as well. > > Authors > > Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution to > the document. > Normally this means writing text or drawing diagrams. Occasionally, with > the consent > of the other authors, it means making some other substantial creative > contribution to > the document, for example by writing a software implementation as part of > the design > process. > > People who did not make any such substantial contribution must not be > listed > as authors. People must not be listed as authors without their explicit > permission. > > The practical impact is that the authors will be listed as such on the > front page if > the document becomes an RFC. > > Contributors > > Contributors are people who made smaller creative contributions to the > document > than the authors. > > People who did not make any such contribution must not be listed as > contributors. > People must not be listed as contributors without their explicit > permission. > > The dividing line between contributors and authors is matter of judgement. > However, > the RFC Editor's policy is to query any document that has more than five > listed authors. > > Editors > > When a document has a large number of contributors and potential authors, > it may > be appropriate to designate one or two people as "Editors" and list all > the others > as contributors. The practical impact of this is that the editors will be > listed > as such on the front page if the document becomes an RFC. > > Acknowledgements > > Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant > creative > contributions smaller than those from the authors and contributors, or to > people > who have made useful comments, provided critical reviews, or otherwise > contributed > significantly to the development of the document. Acknowledgements may > also be given > to people or organizations that have given material support and > assistance, but > this should not include the authors' regular employers. > > An acknowledgement does not signify that the person acknowledged agrees > with the > document. In general, people who do not wish to be listed as an author or a > contributor, but have in fact made a significant contribution, should be > given > an acknowledgement. > > Copyright > > None of the above affects copyright. Copyright in IETF documents is > governed > by BCP 78, the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions, and applicable national and > international law. > > Regards > Brian > > On 23/04/2015 14:55, John Levine wrote: > > In article <20150423021027.GL16567@mx2.yitter.info> you write: > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:58:27AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > >>> Someone pointed out that the authors all get notices when a new draft > >>> is posted. That seems good enough for the rare cases of false > >>> attribution, so "never mind". > >> > >> Except that the people included are thereby on the record as somehow > >> being an author of these things, and maybe they don't want to be. I > >> think that's a little worrisome. > > > > I was assuming that aggrieved non-authors could then use out of band > > means to ask that their unauthored drafts be unpublished. At least > > this lets them know about funny business. > > > > Sure, a sufficiently devious author could use fake addresses that he > > controlled, but that seems a higher degree of evil than we need to > > plan for. Should it happen, I'm sure we'll have the tools to swat the > > violators. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > > > --001a1135366c961c860514721430 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Brian,

Thanks for your co= ntribution. I support the draft, but just did not put it on the IETF-list b= ecause one general-area-participant (which may not=C2=A0understood diversit= y)=C2=A0is always writing=C2=A0replies to mine with no sense=C2=A0or making= jokes while I am trying to do serious=C2=A0work for ietf general area. Are= we in IETF will organised? IMHO, as a person from Africa, we need this dra= ft- work in the general area and to support also diversity in IETF work (ho= pe all authors allow diversity). IMHO, many authors have no guide and they = seem to ignore posts (and if we complain which usually does not happen,=C2= =A0they can say we are busy, but most don't complain because they are m= ore busy, but is IETF following that?)=C2=A0to reduce discussions so they c= an get their work through quickly without real-reviews.

Suggest that we include in the draft more about diversity as an autho= r style/acceptance, because authoring for IETF is all about being diverse a= nd welcoming best ideas and amendments to the IETF work/draft.
Best Regards

AB

<= div>
This message was CC to AD of General Area.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Bria= n E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:=
To some extent this thread has been duck= ing the question that lies behind it.
What is an author, in the IETF context? There's no short answer, so her= e's
a draft of a long answer. If people think it's useful, I can author an<= br> I-D about it...

Scope

These guidelines are aimed at Internet-Drafts in the IETF publication strea= m.
They are intended to be compatible with the RFC Editor's style guide (R= FC7322)
as well.

Authors

Authors are people who have made a substantial creative contribution to the= document.
Normally this means writing text or drawing diagrams. Occasionally, with th= e consent
of the other authors, it means making some other substantial creative contr= ibution to
the document, for example by writing a software implementation as part of t= he design
process.

People who did not make any such substantial contribution must not be liste= d
as authors. People must not be listed as authors without their explicit per= mission.

The practical impact is that the authors will be listed as such on the fron= t page if
the document becomes an RFC.

Contributors

Contributors are people who made smaller creative contributions to the docu= ment
than the authors.

People who did not make any such contribution must not be listed as contrib= utors.
People must not be listed as contributors without their explicit permission= .

The dividing line between contributors and authors is matter of judgement. = However,
the RFC Editor's policy is to query any document that has more than fiv= e listed authors.

Editors

When a document has a large number of contributors and potential authors, i= t may
be appropriate to designate one or two people as "Editors" and li= st all the others
as contributors. The practical impact of this is that the editors will be l= isted
as such on the front page if the document becomes an RFC.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements should be given to people who have made significant creati= ve
contributions smaller than those from the authors and contributors, or to p= eople
who have made useful comments, provided critical reviews, or otherwise cont= ributed
significantly to the development of the document. Acknowledgements may also= be given
to people or organizations that have given material support and assistance,= but
this should not include the authors' regular employers.

An acknowledgement does not signify that the person acknowledged agrees wit= h the
document. In general, people who do not wish to be listed as an author or a=
contributor, but have in fact made a significant contribution, should be gi= ven
an acknowledgement.

Copyright

None of the above affects copyright. Copyright in IETF documents is governe= d
by BCP 78, the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions, and applicable national a= nd
international law.

Regards
=C2=A0 Brian

On 23/04/2015 14:55, John Levine wrote:
> In article <20150423021027.GL16567@mx2.yitter.info> you write:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:58:27AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
>>> Someone pointed out that the authors all get notices when a ne= w draft
>>> is posted.=C2=A0 That seems good enough for the rare cases of = false
>>> attribution, so "never mind".
>>
>> Except that the people included are thereby on the record as someh= ow
>> being an author of these things, and maybe they don't want to = be.=C2=A0 I
>> think that's a little worrisome.
>
> I was assuming that aggrieved non-authors could then use out of band > means to ask that their unauthored drafts be unpublished.=C2=A0 At lea= st
> this lets them know about funny business.
>
> Sure, a sufficiently devious author could use fake addresses that he > controlled, but that seems a higher degree of evil than we need to
> plan for.=C2=A0 Should it happen, I'm sure we'll have the tool= s to swat the
> violators.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>


--001a1135366c961c860514721430-- From nobody Fri Apr 24 01:08:29 2015 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 81D021B3561; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:08:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 1rniOgpqZuJV; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2F961B359E; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qkx62 with SMTP id 62so25528578qkx.0; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:08:02 -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=0vqA1mfMEf9wn+NdS0xPpCkPsmuSpINYlAzTtnEyPlw=; b=LdV+4tntRALyPteNQnVHdEyObGaHA/Uuv2OprBPpRxxFvRDLwb/TeqU/evRjuS0sNc jBLCrRAkRudyFRhwBVkbT97OOATvSXUkA5RyV+/A07bKlu1z1dAEqZZpaEz76gsC6POI pCx/KLSijeBNmFd94C/0EfIKhNWbYJfea8WGV+O7CwUwMUhx9J0yi+9ndQr9h0ulZLVk BJs1X8pSvatvTeuV1c7iBNs5/h1E/kKzWOu1LqMr3sOaiSltdRHt8n+mBmsKNTWhMbjN BfP4lzXEKxfsfuvZTxytB9DNQCENRg8H3XmkkdMiexe9irBT9cdP0D2r5jD8XTQXlBeJ NYTg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.27.162 with SMTP id 31mr7835783qgx.64.1429862882026; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.84.105 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:08:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jari Arkko Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c15330292c0e051473e5f0 Archived-At: Cc: isoc-members-discuss@elists.isoc.org, IETF Chair , "iesg@ietf.org" , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: [Diversity] Improving the IETF information system 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: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:08:26 -0000 --001a11c15330292c0e051473e5f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jari, IETF General Area AD, Thanks for your message, and sorry for this long message. However, I think that IETF information of the initial drafts is not well organised, which is what we in General Area should recommend on from time to time for better interaction. We work differently in life so we have different requirements/priorities in any information system. I agree that there are always other things that majority IETFers give more priority, but there is no doubt that organising the IETF information system is the most important basics for organised production specially when groups volunteer remotely. An organised information in IETF can help progress in work/way-of-work. Remote participants may be suffering the most and specially if from far distance from IETF meetings. Do we support/reply to remote authors (whom think t are organised) that submit to IETF and whom expect a reply? Because every one is busy in and out IETF, the only way IETF will get more organised is when more people will share/gain their time. I try to distinguish between policy and information system, I don't want the IETF IS-system to be only guided/controlled by policy but preferably to be also guided by leaders. Policies help mostly the organisation but information system helps the participants/customer. Thanks also to our tool development group, but do they get surveys on their developments. I am teaching Human-Computer Interaction, and we teach that diverse customer-feedback is very important information for the tool/system programmer. I started to think about Human-IETF Interaction, is it enough? The more the true-information/full-story becomes available for IETF and for participants, the more efficient we can All review/progress. I suggest that in future we look into IETF information systems and tools available (in general and also in details, and how to develop it). The submission of new drafts can be highlighted as: presented-in-meeting, recommended by AD, recommended by ISOC Chapter, recommended by 20 f2f-participants. For me I would like to know/distinguish the recommendation or if it is an initial of one person or more. I think that making things more organised is the most important issue that the general area should look into, as IETF still needs more diverse participants. This information system guidance is very important to help the remote-participants and ISOC-chapters to decide which to read/review/support/follow-up. Best wishes AB IETF Participant from the African Region The subject was: Re: Drafts that can't be serious On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > First, of course we allow everybody to post drafts. I agree with > James=E2=80=99 characterisation of how we approach the various > proposals. > > On the policy being easy to find, and on us saying somewhere > that IDs are just the opinions of the authors unless adopted > by the IETF in some fashion: I have requested a change in > the ID page to provide that information. > Thanks, but still I think the general area should look into the information system as that system is more general. We participants are part of the system as well. > I=E2=80=99m not sure we have other things do though. I=E2=80=99m sensitiv= e > to comments about the content of the policy, but I=E2=80=99ll note > that we don=E2=80=99t do this often. In fact I cannot remember we > have ever done this, but it could be that it is just a too > early morning for me right now. I=E2=80=99ll also note that the > policy lets us handle an exceptional situation when > we come to it by taking it to the steering group. And > making a judgment call on what needs to happen. > In an emergency we can make a quick decision in > IESG. We need the IESG to look into evaluating the IETF information system, is there surveys from remote users and ISOC chapters? > So unless I hear something compelling, > I=E2=80=99m going to assume that we all have other more > urgent things to do in taking the Internet technology > forward :-) > I agree with that we have always more urgent things to do mostly outside IETF :-), However, I think that taking the information system forward is important but not urgent. --001a11c15330292c0e051473e5f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Jari,
IETF General Area AD,

Thanks for your message, and sorry for this long message. H= owever, I think that IETF information=C2=A0of the initial drafts is not wel= l organised, which is what we in General Area should=C2=A0recommend on from= time to time for better interaction. We work differently in life so we hav= e different=C2=A0requirements/priorities in any information system.=C2=A0I = agree that there are always other things that majority IETFers=C2=A0give mo= re priority, but there is=C2=A0no doubt that organising the IETF informatio= n system is the most important basics for=C2=A0organised production special= ly when groups=C2=A0volunteer remotely. An organised=C2=A0information in IE= TF can help progress in work/way-of-work. Remote participants=C2=A0may be= =C2=A0suffering the most and specially if from far distance from IETF meeti= ngs. Do we support/reply to=C2=A0remote authors (whom think=C2=A0t are orga= nised) that submit to IETF and whom expect a reply?

Because every=C2=A0one is busy in and out IETF, the=C2=A0only way IETF wi= ll get more organised is when=C2=A0more people will share/gain their time. = I try to distinguish between policy and information system, I don't wan= t the IETF IS-system to be only guided/controlled by policy but preferably = to be also guided by leaders. Policies help mostly the organisation but inf= ormation system helps the participants/customer. Thanks also to our tool de= velopment group, but do they get surveys on their developments. I am teachi= ng Human-Computer Interaction, and we teach that diverse customer-feedback = is very important information for the tool/system programmer. I started to = think about Human-IETF Interaction, is it enough?=C2=A0The more=C2=A0the tr= ue-information/full-story=C2=A0becomes available for IETF and for participa= nts, the more=C2=A0efficient we can All=C2=A0review/progress.
I suggest that in future we look into IETF information systems = and tools available (in general and also in details, and how to develop it)= . The submission of new drafts can be highlighted as: presented-in-meeting,= =C2=A0recommended by AD, recommended by ISOC Chapter, recommended by 20 f2f= -participants. For me I would like to know/distinguish the recommendation o= r if it is an initial of one person or more.

I th= ink that making things more organised is the most important issue that the = general area should look into, as IETF still needs more diverse participant= s. This information system=C2=A0guidance=C2=A0is very important to help the= remote-participants and ISOC-chapters=C2=A0to decide which to read/review/= support/follow-up.

Best wishes

AB

IETF Participant from the African Region<= /div>





<= /div>
The subject was: Re: Drafts that can't = be serious

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net<= /a>> wrote:
First, of course we allow everybo= dy to post drafts. I agree with
James=E2=80=99 characterisation of how we approach the various
proposals.

On the policy being easy to find, and on us saying somewhere
that IDs are just the opinions of the authors unless adopted
by the IETF in some fashion: I have requested a change in
the ID page to provide that information.

Thanks, but still I think the general area should look into the informati= on system as that system is more general. We=C2=A0participants are part of = the system=C2=A0as well.


I=E2=80=99m not sure we have other things do though. I=E2=80=99m sensitive<= br> to comments about the content of the policy, but I=E2=80=99ll note
that we don=E2=80=99t do this often. In fact I cannot remember we
have ever done this, but it could be that it is just a too
early morning for me right now. I=E2=80=99ll also note that the
policy lets us handle an exceptional situation when
we come to it by taking it to the steering group. And
making a judgment call on what needs to happen.
In an emergency we can make a quick decision in
IESG.

So unless I hear somet= hing compelling,
I=E2=80=99m going to assume that we all have other more
urgent things to do in taking the Internet technology
forward :-)

--001a11c15330292c0e051473e5f0-- From nobody Sun Apr 26 18:50:05 2015 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 9FE431B2D36 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:50:03 -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 PxzgskOP8rK4 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F8A41B2D35 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so60281008igb.0 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:50:01 -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=g33u2gf7sO3SXXIkbTwNkbWIIgtqxl2IPmsgBuQoaig=; b=MP8h/C6bLyy8pbBU+xVA1TAHQGH+AS6xF4nZxy3vzDYnIzQBEll4mVNsWsinZRb+WC dM0zwKQET5ykg2oJqQZ8b7peP9cDZDU1X6bgNbEqxCPMZERQyBQ695l5KpA+PESHJ00t mW/2u7Z6dWUFdukAEPqIAMCRiV+IodBk0iFxyT1+pwzXCo/65cyUfxykTxzTphGqEjHb ztkLtEhiWqJaxwlY3v5MksANscSl130dEYWUAIdmBQMF5keLu5A8feK3yYlZ3V2HBB/F R6bzN0+kclZ434gyiHCD7LgixMWrq+ze9ZaijDRKnp3TllmEIY5+XREx11TZK7/SQVO8 bz6Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.11 with SMTP id ga11mr10637833igd.40.1430099401875; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.214.100 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:50:01 +1000 Message-ID: From: Narelle To: diversity@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [Diversity] Interesting resource paper on women in STEM 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, 27 Apr 2015 01:50:03 -0000 Whilst very much a work in progress this paper has an enormous amount of useful info: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1soIYek-YEIvqtu9brv3ecdPbuVzQKp_GhAozC06UrLo/edit Regards -- Narelle narellec@gmail.com From nobody Mon Apr 27 06:28:38 2015 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 E72841B3434 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:27 -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 RXR5A5yWsOlE for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B41841B3433 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so49599763igb.0 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:26 -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=BoAx59E8Ed6ngIhoJI1laPSTyeDJ99XPPVhK77prwio=; b=LzL2UKeOYqvLhhpcfAlZ7ITtuvdBTFrsJTRnGcSf72DLfBU3VS1Wuw9TKkuPog2RmM 0vZ+ATfjGMr+rBSrANdzy8lIZWMq9Put07OAe2no8w7htJelhuX7l6w2U4q5s9U5O2pm oeXzmYulOxmxHHe9X8hp8Ikp6Yb+gcnPCV/Xy0avy1wdQ5K/4p4jnYVB1keVnzEfV5sP 4aznT5PTNoXG8GItyGg/FDKhmJKR2VbGDiTayXpR99TPMyIUbREus+4Wih92sy+fZG0h g5WmzljKIT74GVVNMKufWU9nbyDIUtxLgMBwRcqG+oTnY8QCB0WivEoCHJSWVHJPOAOY 22sA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.138.70 with SMTP id qo6mr5895423igb.40.1430014106283; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.214.100 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.214.100 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:08:26 +1000 Message-ID: From: Narelle To: diversity@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134bbc6d4330e0514971ac7 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 06:28:36 -0700 Subject: [Diversity] Interesting resource set on women in STEM 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, 26 Apr 2015 02:08:28 -0000 --001a1134bbc6d4330e0514971ac7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Whilst very much a work in progress this paper has an enormous amount of useful info: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1soIYek-YEIvqtu9brv3ecdPbuVzQKp_GhAozC06UrLo/edit Regards Narelle --001a1134bbc6d4330e0514971ac7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


Whilst very much a work in progress this paper has an enormous amount of useful info:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1soIYek-YEIvqtu9brv3ecdPbuVzQKp_GhAozC06UrLo/edit

Regards

Narelle

--001a1134bbc6d4330e0514971ac7-- From nobody Tue Apr 28 21:30:04 2015 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 97D911AC3CE for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:30:03 -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 2hBsd7j3tO7T for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13EF61AC3CD for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdy78 with SMTP id y78so6895269qgd.0 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -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=gDnLPMMVCo4D9IFr5W8RfN2/tPWIiZX44cnaNWEKYW8=; b=Ha1SnKmOWzTofFYxS8Ke4muuhwtzppRj3NNPAw/HP2Hj0FN7bo2l/CpHwaosMAc45B QTZ0QJhVCCO9Si+qRoYJNzzefJvnppoZmW0gq4gbFOy8e/mAwDxL46QF1J++jxjUf+6f dc+wK51bEHn752EJ4p4u5wdghnjMhZBmJ9aDjIOXJyg71xlTeIDfQnguJ6TBnRJDxaGB 4zpGAMRiuhr3KggtMBMdWxMp3KAeNUKI0y4RiTNYSzSXNTlxtcvnrtiGy2Za47EiDY3R svm82bFLysatqME40i5fdiQAuXrn4sL8bXZreCw4jvADGgwIfPPU8zb0xPnuKLkvh/Uh /1cg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.21.166 with SMTP id 38mr24668803qkv.88.1430281800337; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.84.105 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:30:00 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Narelle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147efcea34cb90514d56ef9 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Interesting resource set on women in STEM 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, 29 Apr 2015 04:30:03 -0000 --001a1147efcea34cb90514d56ef9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks Narelle, I hope we can determine the reasons for participants leaving the IETF. In my opinion this article is not only women leaving STEM but there are many people leaving it because it is not welcoming in these days, it is getting complicated in many levels. First it is not taught well, secondly the great participants in STEM don't have time or are hard to reach. For instance, in IETF some new participants may think it is difficult to reach the managers because it is a volunteering org., furthermore, in paid organisation it gets busy that most don't reach only direct manager, while they have no access to higher levels. This needs to stop in future, while our environment is getting more social. However, the third problem is that STEM participants may not be experts in social activities. In IETF it maintains a discussion between participants but still few participants have unpleasant behaviour/language which is killing the progress in diversity/discussions. The fourth problem is that our higher management in our organisations are busy with other important issues, so they may ignore this because there is no much noise in the media about it. Overall, the minority/majority issue makes things complicated that people like to leave to go to better welcoming groups/organisations. In my culture the problem gets more complicated (caused by rulers/managers/majority), however, the main points are easy to solve if all participants work together equally, and they all acknowledge each other. For example, it can be strange that people don't answer question only to whom they know, or it can be strange that their answer changes depending on gender/race, or it is strange that an author does not acknowledge one reviewer while their were few reviews, or it is strange that a participant thinks he/she is not equal to others just because they are different in STEM contributions. We should acknowledge all without looking into contributions because we need all bits to build our organisation future. The solution is all about our highest-level managers in all the organisations we participate in, they should take actions to solve/consider those issues. Furthermore, we should not stop discussing, and contacting the managers for details of their future actions and their plans. In this discussion-list's organisation, ISOC and IESG are responsible in the IETF diversity (or women/new-participants leaving rate) and hopefully they have a plan for this issue. So far I think IETF is in good hands and it is progressing but maybe slow. AB On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Narelle wrote: > > Whilst very much a work in progress this paper has an enormous amount of > useful info: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1soIYek-YEIvqtu9brv3ecdPbuVzQKp_GhAozC06UrLo/edit > > Regards > > Narelle > > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > > --001a1147efcea34cb90514d56ef9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Narelle,

I hope we ca= n determine the reasons for participants leaving the IETF. In my opinion th= is article is not only women leaving STEM but there are many people leaving= it because it is not welcoming in these days, it is getting complicated in= many levels. First it is not taught well, secondly the great participants = in STEM don't have time or are hard to reach. For instance, in IETF som= e new participants may think it is difficult to reach the managers because = it is a volunteering org., furthermore, in paid organisation it gets busy t= hat most don't reach only direct manager, while they have no access to = higher levels. This needs to stop in future, while our environment is getti= ng more social. However, the third problem is that STEM participants may no= t be experts in social activities. In IETF it maintains a discussion betwee= n participants but still few participants have=C2=A0unpleasant behaviour/la= nguage which is killing the progress in diversity/discussions. The fourth p= roblem is that our higher management in our organisations are busy with oth= er important issues, so they may ignore this because there is no much noise= in the media about it. Overall, the minority/majority issue makes things c= omplicated that people like to leave to go to better welcoming groups/organ= isations.

In my culture the problem gets more comp= licated (caused by rulers/managers/majority), however, the main points are = easy to solve if all participants work together equally, and they all ackno= wledge each other.=C2=A0For example, it can be strange that people don'= t answer question only to whom they know, or it can be strange that their a= nswer changes depending on gender/race, or=C2=A0it=C2=A0is strange that an = author does not acknowledge=C2=A0one reviewer while their were few reviews,= or it is strange that a participant thinks he/she is not equal to others j= ust because they are different in STEM contributions. We should acknowledge= all without looking into contributions because we need all bits to build o= ur organisation future.

The solution is=C2=A0all a= bout our highest-level managers in all the organisations we participate in,= they should take actions to solve/consider those issues. Furthermore, we s= hould not stop discussing, and contacting the managers for details of their= future actions and their plans. In this discussion-list's organisation= , ISOC and IESG are responsible in=C2=A0the IETF=C2=A0diversity (or women/n= ew-participants leaving rate)=C2=A0and hopefully they have a plan for this = issue. So far I think IETF is in good hands and it is progressing but maybe= slow.

AB
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Narelle <na= rellec@gmail.com> wrote:

Whilst very much a work in progress this paper has an enormous amount of us= eful info:

https://docs.google.= com/document/d/1soIYek-YEIvqtu9brv3ecdPbuVzQKp_GhAozC06UrLo/edit

Regards

Narelle


_______________________________________________
diversity mailing list
diversity@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity


--001a1147efcea34cb90514d56ef9--