From nobody Sun Mar 1 07:44:52 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 AE2971B35D6; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:44:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, 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 e7PAgqr6__aB; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F8321B2E49; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BE5D602F3; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:14:44 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425224685; bh=wZC5A/J1ylpIX2DJDwQP44m3qI1tmThvzLn2myTFufg=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC; b=VZnNaYJGZTHiLKrB4SAIBPpekoWIo/lx4vVWfY1mygmSc+jBwnsBzR82HCaG2eZJC R+2efVYZLbEHUK2+v3Ct7bYswm3CI0UhQuDLA+hndy6cNK9sMtzYJwu6dl5sIJB96f H0tUzefFWWZ+O+I/zmVSLs9euyhWtZfweHCRnbnQ= In-Reply-To: References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Pranesh Prakash Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:44:41 +0100 To: Donald Eastlake Message-ID: <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org> Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 15:44:48 -0000 Perhaps dropping the idea of imposing a fee for remote participants might help? Or not imposing a fee for non-financed individual participants? Or not imposing a fee for participants from MICs and LICs? The thread topic might provide hints, Donald. I hate to note it, but one of the few on-topic discussions on this list quickly degenerated into meaningless puns and banter. Is there anything positive that's come out of this list? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical device. On 1 March 2015 4:26:42 pm GMT+01:00, Donald Eastlake wrote: >On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Pranesh Prakash > wrote: >> Andrew Sullivan [2015-02-28 21:07:56 -0500]: >>> >>> So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my personal >>> capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the difference is >(in >>> operationalized terms, please). >> >> As you seem to have noted, I believe funding to take part in IETF >> proceedings (and physical meetings) is the key. >> >> Not because it "influences" the views you put forward at the IETF. >(It may >> or may not do so.) >> >> But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the IETF >than >> someone who is not similarly funded. That ability to participate has >all >> manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs, >etc. > >Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if >they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those >with less resources. So what is your proposed solutions? That the IETF >should impose a world-wide re-distributive tax scheme so that everyone >in the world has the same resources at their dispose? I would question >the practicality of that. > >Thanks, >Donald >============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > >> -- >> Pranesh Prakash >> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society >> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From nobody Sun Mar 1 12:04:55 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 8C0601A00E5; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 12:04:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, 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 OnfHojYj16EP; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 12:04:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ABA71A1B25; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 12:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FFA86019F; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 01:34:46 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425240289; bh=W1awBM/itIRUaINgJ7JjJjk2jJu3W/ox2FnOWMTIRek=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=OqU2yJOLpRmfZsMGKQPXfzsPFkUkLHmhdZZCvl9b1E48glUWN5z7tlrdlAOmwekN7 5x5rx0JqwYBjZoGklVrkbc8lH4hUzumAZmorsLM2yWS+1+ByZ9aFFAXd+Jy7+uTSfL 2kaUyt5GZLGV0PAaimzCJKDp92s3JBYEMxlDMw4E= Message-ID: <54F370C9.4090100@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:04:25 +0100 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> <54F273B9.3020008@cis-india.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VuBd2lSH6pbv79NSSbgj6g3IRV3fx9QHw" Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org, IETF Disgust Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 20:04:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --VuBd2lSH6pbv79NSSbgj6g3IRV3fx9QHw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Randy Bush [2015-03-001 10:34:10 +0100]: >> 3) A sizeable number of IETF participants do so using their work e-mai= l >> addresses. > > which is a feature, not a bug. you know who fills their rice bowl. I am not suggesting it is a bug. Like you, I see it as a feature. > this is a decade old, but relevant to this 'discussion' > > http://archive.psg.com/051000.ccr-ivtf.html Thanks, Randy! That was a *very* interesting read. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org twitter:https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --VuBd2lSH6pbv79NSSbgj6g3IRV3fx9QHw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU83DTAAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1fGgP/R6crcuF43pGCSVh8RtCljQI rCAMkpC7S3tZOokSSJvxny4HBq2T8f+WzhjRyaARzAYflYnmw7AWXmfmlpoSttBg LGNWd0CZfxkC9r9O2vgAkPBlo+taUS5MXGxcrf7Wg5xy+VyEL7QZkesBKAeaq4GL BnSkdZ6siUchGL07RAtwWV9c5hyTRoD5gbbsmsOLZYaESVPqyUKaLx/UgVO5edd9 D4bz/shPDu9FhiFa51N+OU8C9iR76V0HcKNvwQCQkcO0RjPnCmT92e0lFm62YdbE snboKcJDTp+lIoEldnlD1Q6D87X0rs3I9V02+n9KE8G+rbCsQoj9Drx6Wsp4MMN5 +aJGbqIVEmbz8WN2WMu/XhPiytQUj6tRGWEmYrTZ4qu+q/dgug5+teQxl0+uthl+ XbbArp1WcZXKKchBltpAH5ApT4QqdcE+PtqpCCzBMcEvXEs20V+mR15YHxsdtc06 fKKKUb8+ojt2eJixXnf8X7Ovtfu8SzGQG7DPW9pGy1nzLeiyzqLyjio44r5AAbDg QjQ37S9b7TD5mMe1BeqcpJD3DJrES7xkVYkgwag24xnuB7nO3CJr/vckhqm4Mm6d aaQCT1nIzDuEO0sACu8zjxjTQadu2L/gBY28hMqcAFhkSzD5tZMtcarWAhHErWII E4TW0pc+ijIgs5P9fSiP =05zm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VuBd2lSH6pbv79NSSbgj6g3IRV3fx9QHw-- From nobody Sun Mar 1 13:43:45 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 E31191A0302; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:43:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 ZiCIy6DzJx21; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 F02911A0015; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B21DCDA00B3; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7597053E078; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.67) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:43:41 -0800 Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:43:41 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:43:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <33673443-2DC8-44E9-8B47-AA04B8F09278@nominum.com> References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org> To: Pranesh Prakash X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: Cc: Donald Eastlake , "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 21:43:43 -0000 On Mar 1, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Pranesh Prakash = wrote: > Perhaps dropping the idea of imposing a fee for remote participants = might help? Or not imposing a fee for non-financed individual = participants? Or not imposing a fee for participants from MICs and LICs?=20= I think everybody who's stated an opinion on this has said that there = would be no fee or a small fee which could be waived for people who = aren't being supported to attend. MIC/LIC status would certainly be a = relevant factor. From nobody Sun Mar 1 17:55:43 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 1AB2B1A010E; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 0jUgw0FYtvev; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 B05261A0105; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mb-aye.local (c-98-248-47-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.47.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t221tVsK015745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 01:55:33 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <54F3C30C.3080409@bogus.com> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:55:24 -0800 From: joel jaeggli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Lemon , Pranesh Prakash References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org> <33673443-2DC8-44E9-8B47-AA04B8F09278@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <33673443-2DC8-44E9-8B47-AA04B8F09278@nominum.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wHAnx1KX7VgpIOLBJ8MXq1R8HHT69snjb" Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 02 Mar 2015 01:55:42 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --wHAnx1KX7VgpIOLBJ8MXq1R8HHT69snjb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You're gonna have to stop using my icescast server if you want to charge money to access it remotely... Seriously though, any number of the components of remote participation have been provided by volunteers or on a best effort basis even when the service itself has been professionalized. On 3/1/15 1:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 1, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Pranesh Prakash > wrote: >> Perhaps dropping the idea of imposing a fee for remote participants >> might help? Or not imposing a fee for non-financed individual >> participants? Or not imposing a fee for participants from MICs and >> LICs? >=20 > I think everybody who's stated an opinion on this has said that there > would be no fee or a small fee which could be waived for people who > aren't being supported to attend. MIC/LIC status would certainly be > a relevant factor. >=20 >=20 --wHAnx1KX7VgpIOLBJ8MXq1R8HHT69snjb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlTzww0ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrI9/ACeKmh5c1Nlhel0uJcwC66PlhLV 7SIAoIbtMJ7scuvYvjff9xqV4tPtU49q =3QkE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wHAnx1KX7VgpIOLBJ8MXq1R8HHT69snjb-- From nobody Sun Mar 1 18:03:47 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 1DDC11A0119; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:03:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 YrTIaZ7prIa1; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 38F771A010E; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F27AEDA00AD; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:03:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EF553E078; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:03:35 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <54F3C30C.3080409@bogus.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 21:03:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <52436C2B-CD73-4AFB-A9DA-57B97A0DF3B9@nominum.com> References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> <4E1B5544-8638-4DC8-B680-9FF786FE5E26@cis-india.org> <33673443-2DC8-44E9-8B47-AA04B8F09278@nominum.com> <54F3C30C.3080409@bogus.com> To: Joel Jaeggli X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Pranesh Prakash , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 02 Mar 2015 02:03:44 -0000 On Mar 1, 2015, at 8:55 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > You're gonna have to stop using my icescast server if you want to = charge > money to access it remotely... >=20 > Seriously though, any number of the components of remote = participation > have been provided by volunteers or on a best effort basis even when = the > service itself has been professionalized. Sigh. This is all very hypothetical. The reason that the idea of charging = for remote participation came up is that if the service becomes good = enough that people stop coming to the meetings in large numbers, we = might need to. But if we don't, that's great, and really the thing we = should be focusing on is making remote attendance that good, not = charging for it. From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:50 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 BF2DE1A009B; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:49:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 yH0NYcpva7QP; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 564ED1A0097; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YRr8X-000HUo-ML; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:49:33 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:49:28 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Pranesh Prakash Message-ID: <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:49:36 -0000 --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 04:45 +0530 Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Nico Williams [2015-02-27 00:08:36 > -0600]: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun >> wrote: >>> Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: >>> individuals and companies, both needs to have diversity. I >>> think IETF has shortage in >> >> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are >> individuals. > > It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction. Pranesh, Please be careful about over-generalizing. Certainly many, almost certainly most, IETF participants are supported for their attendance, while they are attending, and for participation by the companies or clients for whom they work. But some of us are not and are participating as individuals by any plausible way you can figure out to classify "individual". john From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:52 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 BA17D1A0137; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:15:15 -0800 (PST) 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 aoZ5Ce4daOyU; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::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 45EBF1A0127; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by pablf10 with SMTP id lf10so33004119pab.6; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:15:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kv8QMMiFwKA7s1IIFZqNq3hYLPjKSYTiZFOWjCpT/sA=; b=YK6l3IFIh1ihmITGs/8uKPo273yy99r6h6NMVvIulsi7ikRKu/iAjky6FfLD65KNOY G7VNkRPHqFaxRtNfruETxlqw/LxHkNA5N4kdG1hPn3uqgiPlS88BKjkHzFAk01jwSSHu FMfCouKgIOyQorSLNvESiEk7/kZ65ByBI71wMPHv8KWQdY8VB1MZz9EJmGvoiZZYO0mw xax4G7+ZPg5v2f3X/JXsKeZLWHOMaGoXvvDkM9zJO9vJJTjtKyO92KA8386C1t1aG/eu eWtxjlPGIw0yuag8bGpkxu6dAcJ4Njg3Z78eK/z98lG/CGLjK/QnciYuQiKY1q0HnH5k W83w== X-Received: by 10.70.95.200 with SMTP id dm8mr35988737pdb.14.1425172512641; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7c13:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7c13:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nd5sm7842723pbc.64.2015.02.28.17.15.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:15:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:15:05 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pranesh Prakash References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: John C Klensin , diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 01:15:15 -0000 On 01/03/2015 12:49, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 04:45 +0530 Pranesh Prakash > wrote: > >> Nico Williams [2015-02-27 00:08:36 >> -0600]: >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun >>> wrote: >>>> Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories: >>>> individuals and companies, both needs to have diversity. I >>>> think IETF has shortage in >>> >>> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are >>> individuals. >> >> It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction. > > Pranesh, > > Please be careful about over-generalizing. Certainly many, > almost certainly most, IETF participants are supported for their > attendance, while they are attending, and for participation by > the companies or clients for whom they work. But some of us > are not and are participating as individuals by any plausible > way you can figure out to classify "individual". Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as individual, whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective in disenfranchising employers. Also we do, all of us, know how to recognise when someone is parrotting the BigEvil Corporation's party line, and we all know that if six people with the same affiliation have identical opinions on a contentious point, that's roughly equivalent to one individual opinion. The rough consensus process is actually quite good at resisting gaming by BigEvil Corporation; see sections 6 and 7 of RFC 7282. Brian From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:53 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 1D2741A1B0B; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:07:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.758 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 pc74v9xcShI2; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDF41A1B00; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0B248A035; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 02:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:07:56 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Pranesh Prakash Message-ID: <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 02:07:59 -0000 On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:45:07AM +0530, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction. > > Check the IETF main list where there is discussion going on about CFOs > (Chief Financial Officers) footing the bills for participants. > > That doesn't sound like a person participating in their personal capacity to > me. Quite apart from what John says, I'd like to know what you think determines when someone is participating in their personal capacity. You seem to be suggesting that the source of the funding automatically determines what a participant does or says. I can tell you that my employer subsidizes participation of a number of us in the IETF because my employer thinks the Internet is better if the IETF is strong and full of independent voices. We do not co-ordinate our positions. My employer does not have a view (or at least not one it has expressed) about what I ought to interest myself in at the IETF. The biggest problem I have ever had is juggling these obligations (which my employer recognizes and supports) with the rest of my day job. So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my personal capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the difference is (in operationalized terms, please). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:54 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 7ED111A8893; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:34:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 d7WtOnCRL8iQ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:34:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [198.180.150.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C931A8891; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:34:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YS0GL-0001dV-Vu; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 09:34:14 +0000 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 10:34:10 +0100 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Pranesh Prakash In-Reply-To: <54F273B9.3020008@cis-india.org> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> <54F273B9.3020008@cis-india.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: diversity@ietf.org, IETF Disgust Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 09:34:18 -0000 > 3) A sizeable number of IETF participants do so using their work e-mail > addresses. which is a feature, not a bug. you know who fills their rice bowl. this is a decade old, but relevant to this 'discussion' http://archive.psg.com/051000.ccr-ivtf.html randy From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:56 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 7EC581A90FB; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 05:44:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 thyi-XOI5h4t; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 05:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6B41A9103; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 05:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YS4A0-000My1-E6; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:43:56 -0500 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:43:51 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Pranesh Prakash Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <54F27083.7060009@cis-india.org> References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F27083.7060009@cis-india.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 13:44:01 -0000 --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 07:20 +0530 Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>> It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction. >... >> Please be careful about over-generalizing. > > The negation of "all IETF participants are individuals" is > "not all IETF participants are individuals". > > Where is the generalization? The implication of "it is a fiction" is that the statement is not partially true, but untrue. And it is falsified by the presence of a single person who participates as an individual. There are such people regardless of how you define "participates". I dislike the form of Nico's statement that triggered your comment ("...but all IETF participants are individuals", but it is true regardless of one's definition of "participates" and "individual" (see below) because no one is taken seriously in the IETF if they respond to an issue or initiate a conversation with "BigCompany believes...". In a way, that is a disadvantage because, when someone is actually advocating a company or other organizational position --and I have no doubt that it happens-- I'd rather the community be fully informed about that connection. However, the culture generally don't allow such statements and very few people make them. Randy's comment about the filling of rice bowls is relevant to that part of the issue. --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 07:43 +0530 Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Andrew Sullivan [2015-02-28 21:07:56 > -0500]: >> So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my >> personal capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the >> difference is (in operationalized terms, please). > > As you seem to have noted, I believe funding to take part in > IETF proceedings (and physical meetings) is the key. > > Not because it "influences" the views you put forward at the > IETF. (It may or may not do so.) > But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the > IETF than someone who is not similarly funded. That ability > to participate has all manners of implications, including the > ability to be chair of WGs, etc. Often it does. Often it doesn't. Certainly it is easier to participate steadily if one has a regular and guaranteed source of support. For a number of reasons, that has led in recent years to an increase in the fraction of participants who are dedicated to standards in their day jobs rather than having primary research, design, development, implementation, or operations roles. I personally think that is bad, but it isn't because of who is paying the bills. Speaking personally, I've had, not only WG Chair roles, but have been an IESG and IAB member when I had no corporate or other external support for IETF work. I have no such support now, so you can assume that I'm responding to your notes only because I think it is important (I assure you it is not because I'm suffering from an excess of spare time). We have, by the way, had people who are funded by their organizations to participate in IETF stand up and say things like "our products do X, but I think our experience with that approach indicates that is dumb, so the IETF should standardize Y instead". I've seen similar statements in SDOs in which people actually represent organizations, but such positions are then typically a huge corporate deal, with a perceived need to inform customers that the company believes it is shipping a broken product -- where people are even nominally speaking as individuals rather than on behalf of companies, it gets a lot easier. As Andrew partially points out, even among those with organizational support, we've seen a very large range of models from "organization allows the work but won't support it and will require the participant to take umpaid leave while doing it", to "organization supports the work as a public good but has no particular positions", to "organization thinks it is sending people to advocate for its positions". I've talked with and observed people whose organizations are happy to have them participate in IETF and to fund meeting attendance, but on condition that the person involved _never_ take on a document editor, WG Chair, or other "leadership" role (usually because of fear that doing so would interfere with the day job) -- the exact opposite of your idea that organizational support makes it easier to take such positions. My objection to your generalizations is that it lumps those categories (and others) together and thereby loses a lot of information. We also, I think, disagree: I think the key issues really are who is influencing whom, and why, and on whose behalf and agenda the work is being done and statements made. I think that many factors, including the "enables.. more steadily" (or with less pain) one you identify are making the IETF review and decision-making processes less healthy than they used to be. I think when, for whatever reasons, a very significant fraction of our leadership is sufficiently supported by organizational resources that they lose sight of the implications of increasing costs (money or time), vacation destinations, etc., to those with less lavish support or more need to justify support on a meeting by meeting basis to skeptical managers, it lowers IETF technical diversity and, often, quality of results. This would all be nit-picking, except that the tensions those different positions and support models allow are really critical to effective functioning of the IETF. Generalization about who is or is not an individual or about the support being more important than the positions taken distract from whatever efforts might be focused on those more important problems. best, john From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:58 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 1D5511B29CE; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:27:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, 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 OkE98t73at7U; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::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 7DC221B2A6D; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:27:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id vb8so26775528obc.11; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:27:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9G570QXkkxgu4UZ4rHc2DGfh/wkIb0zgYQOwbueCjT8=; b=k4ixqr9IqZJNiymYr3RHbvFrBAra0HuzXWueUgzy2qrCvlqnDl8rVFvXvxvnJFOmB7 LlH1ajPrMMm4iTkAcIKJJn1kvkupqIxmc4qKlbVaHRSumOOfv4Wrz6ovwPwXwDoUlUBc ZxCMGGdt5ZQpAEs4HHWB3sEbzIuaj9CMcvMciT5IR3sw06eEAYCCdVOHDY+9F8zbuOgl /7YNw/cNlYJpTyvhf6YQTcZ4q6ZtcJm6yw0/7vikM2zGmydHVStWfaREqr4mTEVQbGfi ZdY8Y29N2N/Vo5R10DMfVlO1mIo+sl/C+Nqee/WGtlucN4H5mCkOpFcSNQpArxrQtHWy O73w== X-Received: by 10.182.28.102 with SMTP id a6mr16557062obh.69.1425223622785; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:27:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.155.134 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 07:26:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 10:26:42 -0500 Message-ID: To: Pranesh Prakash Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" , Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 15:27:08 -0000 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Andrew Sullivan [2015-02-28 21:07:56 -0500]: >> >> So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my personal >> capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the difference is (in >> operationalized terms, please). > > As you seem to have noted, I believe funding to take part in IETF > proceedings (and physical meetings) is the key. > > Not because it "influences" the views you put forward at the IETF. (It may > or may not do so.) > > But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the IETF than > someone who is not similarly funded. That ability to participate has all > manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs, etc. Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those with less resources. So what is your proposed solutions? That the IETF should impose a world-wide re-distributive tax scheme so that everyone in the world has the same resources at their dispose? I would question the practicality of that. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash > From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:47:59 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 AAFC71A0262; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:08:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.559 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 jPjw7Pbn1u8Q; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:08:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B1261A000F; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:08:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 334F98A031; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 12:08:08 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Pranesh Prakash Message-ID: <20150301170808.GB6463@mx1.yitter.info> References: <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 17:08:12 -0000 On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:43:32AM +0530, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the IETF than > someone who is not similarly funded. That ability to participate has all > manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs, etc. Yes, of course. The fact that I grew up in a middle-class suburb in Canada as opposed to an Native Canadian Reservation means that my education was better funded too. And the fact that I make a pretty good salary and live (though reluctantly) in a low-crime town in New England instead of struggling to keep out of the way of civil war in Syria also gives me such abilities. I'm not sure what you're suggesting one could do about all of this. To bring this back to the topic at hand: currently, remote partipation in IETF meetings is free, with the cost that such participation doesn't get counted for Nomcom eligibility. There've been suggestions that we ought to figure out ways of allowing such remote participation to count at least in some measure, but if we're going to do that then it seems only fair that some of the burden of remote-attendance support be shared by those remote participants, which would mean that participation costs would actually go up for such participants. It therefore seems to me that the best we can do in these cases as participants is to be aware of the gaps in participation and attempt to reflect the interests of those people too. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:48:01 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 F1C891A1C06; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:38:39 -0800 (PST) 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 AtvqIsFAWk6D; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::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 070DA1A1B25; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by padbj1 with SMTP id bj1so37467374pad.5; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:38:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rnHMjFBZ9+MNqmtV7w5nssXZxkNPAW0FjWqoFfW17vw=; b=YreI2oKdVqZvNy3G60nBlev6R/E6kGyaYdVLnMWueTcYAG0czfrgB7wsJog+dLFgBj Acu/3Jz4IyHz59aptBDxZsZb3433458VM1ulMuc5xS87xT+sJ1WN8K/HuMBuZ7visjW/ AjhTwZAeUNvUbi0uNZQsihyVW4Rqdu1HmVyQkciR4r709xWtSYrZOWVz5cFInktrkuFw X8kY5cZvxYGraHq9QbVW+cb7gtcRkNHxeRqg6j4qIyqblv5dhGMEiCnBKZUqTh/KP2NM lrKVDg8q3gFnm5sfnXX0ST4lWYonF/AjV+57t4HZdncaOGnO4Y7dBo2ooxCqylF+FUI0 +F0Q== X-Received: by 10.66.66.135 with SMTP id f7mr40725127pat.93.1425238717222; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5ef9:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5ef9:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d11sm9833287pbu.10.2015.03.01.11.38.33 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:38:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54F36AB3.9030107@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:38:27 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pranesh Prakash References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <6877CE786B7D930D17F2F89E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54F26819.9060202@gmail.com> <54F273B9.3020008@cis-india.org> In-Reply-To: <54F273B9.3020008@cis-india.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 01 Mar 2015 19:38:40 -0000 On 01/03/2015 15:04, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Brian E Carpenter [2015-03-001 14:15:05 > +1300]: >> Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as individual, >> whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective in >> disenfranchising employers. > > Is there an RFC that states this? The fact that we participate as individuals is documented in BCP 95 (RFC 3935). The way we evaluate consensus is discussed (informationally) in RFC 7282. > Further, regardless of how the IETF treats inputs in theory, the reality > is: > 1) A large percentage of IETF participants are paid by their employers > for participating in IETF proceedings and meetings. > 2) Employers are in no way, shape, or form discouraged from putting > forward their views through their employees. > 3) A sizeable number of IETF participants do so using their work e-mail > addresses. > 4) Employers' names are mentioned in each RFC to indicate an > individual's pedigree. I don't know what the word "pedigree" means in this context, and some people prefer not to state their employer's name. However, yes, as a matter of objective fact people's participation, their technical perceptions and their achievements are affected by their employment. It would be delusional to imagine that anything else is possible. > I would like to know how employers are disenfranchised when this is the > reality. I am not sure that you have any experience in other SDOs where participation and decision-making are entirely determined by corporate membership. If you had any such experience, I think you would understand that while the IETF system is not perfect, it largely resists corporate bullying. > I find this entire, "we are all individuals" line to be the foundational > fiction of It's a shame that sentence got truncated, but since the IETF started (years before I was involved) as a meeting of 21 indivduals, some of whom still participate in the IETF despite numerous changes of employer, individual participation is a foundational fact of >> Also we do, all of us, know how to recognise when someone is parrotting >> the BigEvil Corporation's party line, and we all know that if six people >> with the same affiliation have identical opinions on a contentious >> point, that's roughly equivalent to one individual opinion. > > My worry isn't BigEvil corporation. My concern is that pretending > individuals who are paid for by their employers and those who > participate purely in their personal capacity are somehow equal because > of their equal capacity to hum is fallacious and harmful towards > achieving diversity. There's no fallacy. It is commonplace to see interventions by self- employed consultants knock down arguments by BigEvil Corp employees. The IETF is a technical meritocracy, by design. > The first step towards achieving diversity is > recognizing that a) there is a lack of diversity; b) there are reasons > preventing diversity. But you'd better be right about those reasons. I see nothing in the IETF model of individual participation that prevents diversity; rather the opposite, in fact. >> The rough consensus process is actually quite good at resisting gaming >> by BigEvil Corporation; see sections 6 and 7 of RFC 7282. > > Again: my concern isn't gaming of consensus, nor do I believe > corporations who sponsor their employees' IETF work are evil. My > concern is diversity within the IETF and within the larger sphere of > Internet governance. Those are two entirely different questions. As far as the IETF goes, we need to attract and welcome top class engineers who have the capacity *as individuals* to join the technical meritocracy. As far as "the larger sphere of Internet governance" goes, the more time passes, the less idea I have of what that means or why it matters. And I remind you that this thread started around the question of how can we fund a model with more emphasis on remote participation and less emphasis on face-to-face meetings. It's a sad fact that without money at the level of a few $M per year, we can't fund any model at all. Brian Brian From nobody Sun Mar 1 21:48:02 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 6B9E31A1BFE for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:35:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.033 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 JAha10Yp7aYe for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4304B1A1BF5 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 24294 invoked by uid 0); 1 Mar 2015 22:35:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2015 22:35:42 -0000 Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by cmgw2 with id yNbc1p00B1MNPNq01Nbfyy; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:35:42 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bJKFfpOZ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=Jklo8jbM_8AA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=HGEM6zKYvpEA:10 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=iXrQUPsBOwql4ofnJnwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:Message-ID:CC:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=/en+5cKi6ljUz0J8W9IbHAU0KOuMiL7UpVlWGeCvhBs=; b=GUbcpzZ37cALk6F5giqoE2Pn+OnKEHElLYhkDbvSw1zEQ499sLFfp5Wzepydl1XLIjEnZuRvr4qKHJxOeQdPxkO50UIn5HQofUxXpYvgCPbFUnoqlmGsuz6sucgHU09c; Received: from [108.56.131.201] (port=59514 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YSCSW-00022n-SN; Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:35:37 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:35:32 -0500 From: Richard Shockey To: Brian E Carpenter , Pranesh Prakash Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Money is the answer? Hum.. Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.56.131.201 authed with richard+shockey.us} Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:47:43 -0800 Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: [Diversity] Money is the answer? Hum.. 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, 01 Mar 2015 22:35:53 -0000 > >>> The rough consensus process is actually quite good at resisting gaming >>> by BigEvil Corporation; see sections 6 and 7 of RFC 7282. >>=20 >> Again: my concern isn't gaming of consensus, nor do I believe >> corporations who sponsor their employees' IETF work are evil. My >> concern is diversity within the IETF and within the larger sphere of >> Internet governance. > >Those are two entirely different questions. As far as the IETF goes, >we need to attract and welcome top class engineers who have the >capacity *as individuals* to join the technical meritocracy. As far >as "the larger sphere of Internet governance" goes, the more time >passes, the less idea I have of what that means or why it matters. The reality is long term IETF participation is becoming a career limiting move for a certain class of Internet Engineering professional. Sadly we don=B9t do stock options. The more bureaucratic we become the more we start to look like ah .. Geneva. As far as the internet governance issue .. Well there are some folks in the US that have some very definite ideas about that. We=B9ll see when the the latest rockem sockem action packed Report and Order from the FCC looks like.=20 Can you define =B3fair and reasonable=B2 so what is =B3reasonable network management=B2?=20 Coming to a laser printer near you in a couple of weeks. Film at 11 (EST) > >And I remind you that this thread started around the question of how >can we fund a model with more emphasis on remote participation and >less emphasis on face-to-face meetings. It's a sad fact that without >money at the level of a few $M per year, we can't fund any model at all. Humm=8A =B3Money is the answer, what is the question?" I seem to have heard that proposition before. The obvious answer is for ISOC on behalf of the IETF to take over ICANN once and for all.=20 They certainly have more money than they know what to do with so it seems logical. We certainly know what to do with it. Cookies (especially gluten free cookies) and ice cream could be free! Given ICANN's free cash flow we might be able to add shrimp bowls. > From nobody Mon Mar 2 12:55:24 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 46EF81A1BCF; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:21 -0800 (PST) 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 UqgclTOnPjNY; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (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 42CF11A0127; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id h3so13289541qgf.13; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:18 -0800 (PST) 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=6jBR3PH1YKbXQ+ml0kLU/IryAb1dv/T3Ic7t0QySMWY=; b=wb+Qhxv+9Nrv9EKxiYXKoX/nQYPVk22zwBqLnk6+fPm99Bb2z0LFBHdvuYx8T2ugb5 qWehv+SEVJaBz1m0wj2ZruZa+qcF10CnijT6USk9kt82CbMAeKevn+gMlzDlhJOrVl97 es5Q9790KxjxDjNJSwnkwJBXIvZzLjNFiLsiUX/gsLYlDaOwo0FBJVSGfwq2j3oOUP4Y Kembk8PLEz2c4DTpdyrn/7UE8IUsRxayxXNABss4WWGaQOXwIQV1v8bvlJSuFK2/tjSo Ttif1nQXPolN2OfqjeZLdjtQFdfyUnJuZ6HmAE23Rx1vDd2QZ9QsRBH1M9dodm6hRsqO HuSw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.97.38 with SMTP id l35mr52516884qge.47.1425329718514; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:55:18 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9ca28f5ad10510546f65 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Pranesh Prakash , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 02 Mar 2015 20:55:21 -0000 --001a113a9ca28f5ad10510546f65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/03/2015 15:04, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter [2015-03-001 14:15:05 > > +1300]: > >> Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as individual, > >> whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective in > >> disenfranchising employers. > > > > Is there an RFC that states this? > > The fact that we participate as individuals is documented in BCP 95 (RFC > 3935). > The way we evaluate consensus is discussed (informationally) in RFC 7282. > If the input is individuals effort then output is individuals effort, very simple model, so its the groups name which counts. IMHO we may need to amend that RFC3935 because group-participation is not only input-IETF but also output-IETF, why the output of IETF includes companies names within RFCs??? Did this RFC ignore participation in the IETF output?? The IETF needs to clarify its output as individual, so that it is only individuals effort output and not company effort involved. I tried to see that exclusion but did not find that. Therefore, that RFC3935/7282 does not exclude companies support from the interpretation of its output. AB --001a113a9ca28f5ad10510546f65 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter <= ;brian.e.c= arpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03= /2015 15:04, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <b= rian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> [2015-03-001 14:15:05
> +1300]:
>> Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as indiv= idual,
>> whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective i= n
>> disenfranchising employers.
>
> Is there an RFC that states this?

The fact that we participate as individuals is documented in BCP 95 = (RFC
3935).
The way we evaluate consensus is discussed (informationally) in RFC 7282.

If the input is individuals effort then = output is individuals effort, very simple model, so its the groups name whi= ch counts. IMHO we may need to amend that RFC3935 because group-participati= on is not only input-IETF but also output-IETF, why the output of IETF incl= udes companies names within RFCs??? Did this RFC ignore participation in th= e IETF output?? The IETF needs to clarify=C2=A0its output as individual, so= =C2=A0that it is only individuals effort=C2=A0output and not company effort= involved. I tried to see that exclusion but did not find that. Therefore, = that RFC3935/7282 does not exclude=C2=A0companies support=C2=A0from the int= erpretation of its output.=C2=A0

AB

=

=C2=A0
--001a113a9ca28f5ad10510546f65-- From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:56:26 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 CEBCA1A8784; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 06:35:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.134 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] 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 xj6T_vdPcDCS; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 06:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 452071A8785; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 06:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 114.170.199.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.199.170.114]:64005 helo=GHM-SAM.dot.dj) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YSRR5-0000rV-9k; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 06:35:07 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:35:07 +0100 To: Andrew Sullivan , Brian E Carpenter From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: intl+dot.dj/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Message-Id: <20150302143509.452071A8785@ietfa.amsl.com> Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:56:25 -0800 Cc: John C Klensin , "diversity@ietf.org" , gene@iuwg.net, "iucg@ietf.org" , Pranesh Prakash Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 02 Mar 2015 14:35:11 -0000 Dear Andrew and Brian, Thank you for your key inputs. At least in the way I see them. Please consider carefully the RFC 6852 current=20 paradigm. In a nutshell, it is "open=20 permissionless innovation by global community=20 economic coopetition". This is not a bad approach=20 and I understand the IETF, NTIA, ICANN, etc. are=20 progressively adapting to it (IANAPLAN). However,=20 for this to be fully effective, one has to admit that: 1. this coopetition fractally also=20 applies within each global community, etc. down=20 to the corporation, and down to individuals. This=20 is what your employer seems to have understood. This is naturally moderated= by - people's self-restriction in order to not endanger their job; - unselfishness of dedicated independent consultants - and because "as a matter of objective fact,=20 people's participation, their technical=20 perceptions, and their achievements are affected=20 by their employment. It would be delusional to=20 imagine that anything else is possible" (Brian Carpenter). 2. the IETF itself is one of these global=20 communities since there is no documented ultimate=20 technical referent, or economic referent to read=20 and evaluate the market decisions. The ISOC/IETF=20 has chosen the NTIA as its ultimate decision=20 maker (most probably meaning the FCC in the long=20 range), and ICANN seems to adopt the WEF as their=20 economic reader. All of this and many other=20 things makes the IETF system - however imperfect=20 - to be largely able to resist corporate bullying (cf. Brian Carpenter). Such a situation is acceptable in a=20 multistakeholder approach where global=20 communities are identified and mutually agreed on=20 (Edge Providers, States, ICANN, RIRs, USCC). Let=20 us say that the IETF is an RFC 6852 informal=20 default SDO for TCP/IP, mainly for the OECD/US-TPP-TAFTA industrial= community. It is not advisable in the omnistakeholder=20 multitechnology global governance context that I defend. Moreover, this implies an additional=20 problem/clarifying feature: the IETF dedication=20 to end to end TCP/IP issues, i.e. to the covering=20 of only a very large but reducing part of the=20 digital catenet's (global multitech network of=20 networks) intelligent use needs. Therefore, its=20 Internet technology is to be considered increasingly as one of the datacommunications technologies being used on the catenet and/or one of the proposal's source concerning=20 the multi-technologcal common needs. The IETF doesn=92t want to document - at least at=20 this stage - the IEN 48 second motivation's=20 intended master/fundamental catenet protocol set,=20 as we have known/used one with the=20 "NSA-over-compatible" Tymnet Protocol or even=20 with Telenet originated CCITT X.75/25. The real issue is not in practical protocol=20 issues, but rather in the whole digital=20 architectonic and multi-architectural framework,=20 societal understanding, and political governance.=20 The IETF is engaged in a consumerist scheme that=20 is different from the WSIS' =93 people centered, =E0=20 caract=E8re humain, centrada en la persona=94=20 consensus. This means that it can accept every=20 kind of diversity within that framework but it is=20 inadequate to internally discuss an alternate=20 framework. This did belong to IAB: RFC 6852 now=20 assigns the job to the market competition. All of this causes many problems. My feeling is=20 that the solution is not in an ethically divided=20 catch-all organization, but rather in a=20 harmonious sponsored SDOs coopetitive network (cf. RFC 6852 again). Where the IETF is the best, the IETF should be. For what does not belong to that IETF, new=20 structures are to be helped to emerge or=20 adapt, so that incumbents will be able to=20 welcome and help them. IMHO, the experience of=20 the WHATWG is important to consider. I tried some rendezvous between the IETF,=20 lead-users, Libre, as an IETF non-WG mailing list=20 (iucg@ietf.org). This is possibly of interest as=20 a liaison if it was widely publicized/accepted,=20 but it cannot stand alone on its own. What is=20 needed is a Libre's Google like transnational=20 corporation. Because it will be necessary for it=20 to organize an internal omnistakeholderist=20 process that can in turn play its political,=20 normative, and industrial part in the=20 multistakeholderist polylogue. This calls for=20 structure, exposure, money, and (probably=20 disruptive) adequate major industrial innovation. This is the idea behind the Catenet Cooperative=20 Corporation (CCC) project. If it succeeds it will=20 have its own normalization/standardization system=20 that will relate with the IETF within the RFC=20 6852 framework on an equal footing basis. This=20 will be because its solutions will be on an equal=20 technical footing basis via the market, as will=20 be the NDNconsortium, RINA, SDN, etc. name them, in their respective areas. For this to happen and succeed it must start as=20 the IETF did: a small group but of Libre=20 researchers this time, instead of=20 US-government-fundedones. May be some will be from the IETF. If the IETF thinks it needs a "paywall" in=20 addition to its "trollwall" system in order to=20 address its RFC 3774bis remote participation=20 issues, I see no problem with it. We all need the=20 IETF to continue being successful and consistent.=20 RFC 6852 is for everyone to liaise, as IETF does=20 with the ITU, being forced to do it by the market. My only real concerns are: - the way RFCs are presented in that they are not=20 very attractive and transparent for people who=20 did not participate in their writing. - what Brian says "I remind you that this thread=20 started around the question of how can we fund a=20 model with more emphasis on remote participation=20 and less emphasis on face-to-face meetings. It's=20 a sad fact that without money at the level of a=20 few $M per year, we can't fund any model at all".=20 The target for us users is an intelligent use of=20 our digital tools to be documented. This also=20 means a free, smart use: how could it be deemed=20 attractive for the internet to use IETF solutions=20 if using these very tools to document them would cost so much? jfc At 03:07 01/03/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:45:07AM +0530, Pranesh Prakash wrote:. > > It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction. > > > > Check the IETF main list where there is discussion going on about CFOs > > (Chief Financial Officers) footing the bills for participants. > > > > That doesn't sound like a person=20 > participating in their personal capacity to > > me. > >Quite apart from what John says, I'd like to know what you think >determines when someone is participating in their personal capacity. >You seem to be suggesting that the source of the funding automatically >determines what a participant does or says. > >I can tell you that my employer subsidizes participation of a number >of us in the IETF because my employer thinks the Internet is better if >the IETF is strong and full of independent voices. We do not >co-ordinate our positions. My employer does not have a view (or at >least not one it has expressed) about what I ought to interest myself >in at the IETF. The biggest problem I have ever had is juggling these >obligations (which my employer recognizes and supports) with the rest >of my day job. > >So, if you prefer to say that I'm still not acting "in my personal >capacity", very well; but I'd like to know what the difference is (in >operationalized terms, please). > >Best regards, > >A From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:56:27 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 47B0E1A8AAD for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 grULsduVnkH7 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x232.google.com (mail-ob0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) (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 039991A8AAB for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id uz6so34767870obc.9 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dSfHr7+bkRe5vKeop+/YiOJDCvjR/4scU37eAT7Ji40=; b=Kz9POxb3ndvVHoq2DJtnTM80puszNxoDK4RJIjplGqLwH+aA+8lM59jC59dnvnQTal zgtrBProbyH/mDVkRT1N0ql8KXmtC4bdkuYHka6Q0bhKnCxYZZEJeLD3DCWVtQh0rlKM Gj1Ns8S+IMerYsm21Gc5sYgNxCLFnr5Lz/JoQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dSfHr7+bkRe5vKeop+/YiOJDCvjR/4scU37eAT7Ji40=; b=bXLEvJhXtgDZ4W/Gw/W6mVI622GXwP9EMNfB2Eb/YzOMeRYkw5Zov9rgNO5Z1TXbQ/ wPuAd3dqs0TBniXAb+gpoFIlKPk51ZyPtRS4u5Ww58FhtJQ795a5uqVR2h6ywF0JowA4 0+Ormin4H9FIwuZqvbplEK5rAA0a1BOxUN58oTgsOPms2HRLEK1boxxTlsN1pMipdzFS o80HewokLUI4TYPI5XqIWR2ZOFYO4/Wb7tYUhpVZAS155H5eyUnEduS2NCLtbielxT8l GG4yjwMZwz416r0GeO6rZ4EDO6Cz3VOIr8homKjA+vi/tR4qEtsU5zmr0LWVfYNb7rgv xmqg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldsnDrrZ/+yaNHnFw8t7sR1RmynjVVX9MRjYY+JF/FU5efmpZtQvlaO2mgeBw7P+xELsDv MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.57.195 with SMTP id g186mr19988962oia.86.1425338456187; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.62.172 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:20:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:20:56 +0000 Message-ID: From: Dave Cridland To: Donald Eastlake Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cfe5c5dbc0d0510567844 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:56:25 -0800 Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Pranesh Prakash , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 02 Mar 2015 23:20:58 -0000 --001a113cfe5c5dbc0d0510567844 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 1 March 2015 at 15:26, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if > they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those > with less resources. I suspect it can be reworded to a simpler statement. Currently, to obtain "NomCom eligibility" (which means more than simply eligibility to volunteer for NomCom), it requires actual money being spent either by, or on behalf of, the participant. A little under $1500 needs to be paid to the IETF each year (based on $700 for each meeting, 3 out of 5 meetings, and the requirement that the remaining meeting would probably need to be attended also making it average two meetings per year). That ignores the additional costs of travel and accommodation. When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants, the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental timing; a more cynical person might think the two were causally related. There's soft implications of being well funded (I suspect, John's comments notwithstanding, that it is essentially impossible to have a reasonable paid job and act as AD in one's "spare time" these days), but really, it isn't a matter of trying to solve these issues absolutely or not at all - it's actually acceptable to consider ways of simply reducing the gap, even if we admit we cannot eliminate it. Certainly, imposing remote participation fees doesn't leap out at me as a way to *improve* the disparity. Dave. --001a113cfe5c5dbc0d0510567844 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1= March 2015 at 15:26, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrot= e:
Your position seems to be that persons= with more resources can, if
they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those
with less resources.

I suspect it can be re= worded to a simpler statement.

Currently, to obtai= n "NomCom eligibility" (which means more than simply eligibility = to volunteer for NomCom), it requires actual money being spent either by, o= r on behalf of, the participant. A little under $1500 needs to be paid to t= he IETF each year (based on $700 for each meeting, 3 out of 5 meetings, and= the requirement that the remaining meeting would probably need to be atten= ded also making it average two meetings per year). That ignores the additio= nal costs of travel and accommodation.

When it'= ;s suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants, the conve= rsation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote participants. I&= #39;m personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental timing; a mor= e cynical person might think the two were causally related.

<= /div>
There's soft implications of being well funded (I suspect, Jo= hn's comments notwithstanding, that it is essentially impossible to hav= e a reasonable paid job and act as AD in one's "spare time" t= hese days), but really, it isn't a matter of trying to solve these issu= es absolutely or not at all - it's actually acceptable to consider ways= of simply reducing the gap, even if we admit we cannot eliminate it.
=

Certainly, imposing remote participation fees doesn'= ;t leap out at me as a way to *improve* the disparity.

=
Dave.
--001a113cfe5c5dbc0d0510567844-- From nobody Mon Mar 2 15:57:00 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 567281A8AD9; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:56:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, 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 EwtlnRNdsJPX; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.prakash.im (prakash.im [162.243.72.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5DE51A8AC2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:56:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.prakash.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7041600F8; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:26:54 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mail.cis-india.org; s=mail; t=1425340615; bh=UwLwACwI2kcGLjevOr28GaZM6SELUvkZHBDetS3+X4M=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=vGmXnW6NLi6mz+a32PnyJpkcDOFz6tlsDuOvsRkj+wFl74CWiFxu6hnNvYX3ZLwUu h6warkvtoK4tIfJj5NHFYFP9X28r7xupR316JbTkG1MLb0Mdc9ofeXfiRNeb9uEzib baYSs0G381PxuXiYC7Kh1fh1Ylct1uQczR/aZDGc= Message-ID: <54F4F8BD.7090803@cis-india.org> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:56:45 +0100 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cridland , Donald Eastlake References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ueinmSIMGoSiS6UUPkbvKL9uGq3ik5vWb" Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 02 Mar 2015 23:56:58 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ueinmSIMGoSiS6UUPkbvKL9uGq3ik5vWb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dave Cridland [2015-03-02 23:20:56 +0000]: > On 1 March 2015 at 15:26, Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if >> they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those >> with less resources. > > > I suspect it can be reworded to a simpler statement. > > Currently, to obtain "NomCom eligibility" (which means more than simply= > eligibility to volunteer for NomCom), it requires actual money being sp= ent > either by, or on behalf of, the participant. A little under $1500 needs= to > be paid to the IETF each year (based on $700 for each meeting, 3 out of= 5 > meetings, and the requirement that the remaining meeting would probably= > need to be attended also making it average two meetings per year). That= > ignores the additional costs of travel and accommodation. > > When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants= , > the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote > participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental > timing; a more cynical person might think the two were causally related= =2E > > There's soft implications of being well funded (I suspect, John's comme= nts > notwithstanding, that it is essentially impossible to have a reasonable= > paid job and act as AD in one's "spare time" these days), but really, i= t > isn't a matter of trying to solve these issues absolutely or not at all= - > it's actually acceptable to consider ways of simply reducing the gap, e= ven > if we admit we cannot eliminate it. > > Certainly, imposing remote participation fees doesn't leap out at me as= a > way to *improve* the disparity. Thank you, Dave. That's exactly what I was intending when I wrote,=20 "That ability to participate has all manners of implications, including=20 the ability to be chair of WGs, etc.", and is much better worded than I=20 possibly could have managed. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org twitter:https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --ueinmSIMGoSiS6UUPkbvKL9uGq3ik5vWb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU9PjFAAoJEE0qlBAVWSN1czsP/05Q+pmP0hoAldvRU6C8ts+7 YPLTAvJTNxQZhEYkwfui35RjFcGthdX4wlSbv8+vum7LNOkscoKE/lVOH1S+xcG5 /zIxYzvdvGWQ2XtH4OL8k1N+J8vMoCh4wngjsOrFQPxy0c/tQABnMVn6XGMK2G0B z/3iG/W+31BgKJT4XWSnejYyBYTtUXZvOk9r8cLsrgyV08ICoQPQNv4rHWR5jJk8 LQ9A1KuZb4k7nMK48dS3w3kAKYhkqBQ3KsrG07N7HlRV63IkyVs0/POgDsvcEkGQ k4v9RrBaIa5PxiebSzpT0JSJuML2SuhdBDz932Slp9mt/z6UwlMSWADfT6P9kp8a uWPugaoGm+oILTOypcbM8FP/O5S+OySlOz8QFzXEeBBRPM7tLsCMaYdJobGDjm7G 6mE0l3+dMS3hDXB52mScRZP6rqEYSwUhVj1ThKrEOsdQByURYhQh0vO0fJ6CkI8v vztYUk6mznSzXDmgqkZl9+4O+wH9d/1dG/iRH1t56OyfNF36G0UAi1tSUGhRmPwh xO0CBwwGKHO9gM228Sz8g73lKbXrHv27W+b4Zdl7Lg8p3C8I510FlYnWIU/AedZZ Vqd/XJFLFH3eHkzS3lFppHfIr/+RbzC1wDXZ3EmKAfvL/if0pkRTLKk63/Mfcn4c 74jLJ2xruhf+L3x2RqpL =dWo2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ueinmSIMGoSiS6UUPkbvKL9uGq3ik5vWb-- From nobody Mon Mar 2 19:06:02 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 072041A020A; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:06:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 WcQzsVjg2trO; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 EA9AA1A0141; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E1EDA00B1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:05:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54A353E073; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 19:05:58 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:00:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> To: Dave Cridland X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215] Archived-At: Cc: Donald Eastlake , "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 03 Mar 2015 03:06:00 -0000 On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote = participants, the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees = for remote participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply = coincidental timing; a more cynical person might think the two were = causally related. David, when I brought up the idea of fees, for the very first time, I = said that it should be possible for people who do not have employee = sponsorship to attend remotely without paying a fee. Several other = people have said similar things as well. I don't think anybody has = contradicted this. So the outcome of this would be that nomcom = eligibility would be less expensive. So I really don't know why this keeps coming up. I guess there is some = real anger out there about the current nomcom situation. But if that's = so, this is part of the process of changing that. So you might want to = consider not shooting the messenger. The reason I brought up fees is not that I like fees. It's that = running the IETF costs money, and that money currently comes in large = part from attendee fees, since the IETF doesn't have a membership and = doesn't charge dues. From nobody Mon Mar 2 21:45:36 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 4D1691A0104 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:45:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 2ZukEYsfIi_l for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::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 6B34B1A00A8 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcxn11 with SMTP id n11so609146qcx.11 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:45:31 -0800 (PST) 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=w5vu1oBg4ufsRmzUgjuWjmXDXf2Y5IcvHy6T5QqYXMQ=; b=NMAdaL2etsLU6rXuvwK8/p8nHqGwiJMC2cZAIhDRDWzgf+hV1t5wJS/kTQNGX06BLt S7z6kWdEA17OuCuZmN0Nh6IWQH49S3ZhRTUidPO0gVL7fXdPBfmOLN04rYcLGMlfPG6c ePovFKdq4tpNe5o4JQwUg4bYNgdBm1+SKIhlaR4OHhCfhstA7c0chbIBy8N8nH0fPURW nqj+/ZC6LQIkIhQePxBlilWrFXhC/GrRkPGQasb7gjOO0O6yqrIsktrkyYbT3z4Efso0 FStOxql3MLplHEeY9nWuqbMmvg+BuF6DholO5HxBLSmGOSFDQHX3aAYv+FjEQy+MxJao VpUg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.42.38 with SMTP id q38mr9108207qkh.99.1425361531706; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:45:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 21:45:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:45:31 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11494350c6212405105bd792 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: [Diversity] IETF Participation Model (was Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 03 Mar 2015 05:45:35 -0000 --001a11494350c6212405105bd792 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Dave, Your model below needs to consider reasons of attendance and expectations. Any organisation will want to know why their visitors visit and visitors expectations, so they model including that. The model needs to encourage and to be flexible. To increase diversity in IETF participation, the participation model needs to be improved. On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/25/2015 > > Note that our current participation model > > Free: Email list discussion. > Remote attendance, with poor-to-mediocre access > > Pay: IETF Meeting f2f Attendance > > What's being discussed here is presumably far better remote attendance > capabilities. That is adding new services/options to the remote participants but what about adding fees to small/large companies using IETF. > As it approaches adequacy as a replacement for the basic uses of f2f > meeting attendance, it's not automatically clear that it should be > excluded from having a fee. Companies are excluded, IETF made costs per Individual. That is hiding reality which includes And I say that in spite of my continuing > concern that the IETF effectively restrict serious participation by > those with constrained budgets (and/or time.) Individual are more constrained than companies but still the model excluded one. > We already have a model with a free/pay range of participation. If we > consider the model independent of technical details, we might find > choices that make sense but still have charging for at least some forms > of remote attendance or at least some remote attendees. When some one puts his name on my document that means the named one is a participant. Why companies benefit without payments? When I review an IETF draft I always know that the authors are benefiting from feedback of participation added. Even IESG is happy to see diverse-reviews on drafts. In IETF we still may have weak feedback. May one person stop reviewing for work supported by one company, or should he/she only review for IETF ignoring other companies outcome? AB --001a11494350c6212405105bd792 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dave,

Your model below needs to consider reason= s of attendance and expectations. Any organisation will want to know why th= eir visitors visit and visitors expectations, so they model including that.= The model needs to encourage and to be flexible.=C2=A0To increase diversit= y in IETF=C2=A0participation,=C2=A0the participation model needs to be impr= oved.=C2=A0

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Dave Crocker <dhc= @dcrocker.net> wrote:
On 2/25/2015= =C2=A0

Note that our current participation model

=C2=A0 Free:=C2=A0 Email list discussion.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Remote attendance, with poor-to-mediocre = access

=C2=A0 Pay:=C2=A0 =C2=A0IETF Meeting f2f Attendance

What's being discussed here is presumably far better remote attendance<= br> capabilities.

That is adding new=C2=A0servi= ces/options to=C2=A0the=C2=A0remote participants but what about adding fees= to small/large=C2=A0companies using IETF.=C2=A0


As it approaches adequacy as a replacement for the basic uses of f2f
meeting attendance, it's not automatically=C2=A0clear that it should be=
excluded from having a fee.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Companies=C2=A0are excluded,= IETF made costs per Individual. That is hiding reality which includes

And I say that = in spite of my continuing
concern that the IETF effectively restrict serious participation by
those with constrained budgets (and/or time.)


Individual=C2=A0are more constrained than companies but s= till the model excluded one.=C2=A0


We already have a model with a free/pay range of participation.=C2=A0 If we=
consider the model independent of technical details, we might find
choices that make sense but still have charging for at least some forms
of remote attendance or at least some remote attendees.
=C2=A0When some one puts his name on my document that means th= e named one is a participant. Why companies benefit without payments?=C2=A0= When I review an IETF draft I always know that the authors are benefiting f= rom feedback of participation=C2=A0added.=C2=A0Even IESG is happy to see di= verse-reviews on drafts. In IETF we still may=C2=A0have weak feedback.=C2= =A0

May=C2=A0one person stop reviewing for work su= pported by one company, or should he/she=C2=A0only review for IETF ignoring= other=C2=A0companies outcome?

AB
--001a11494350c6212405105bd792-- From nobody Tue Mar 3 06:32:26 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 5F42E1A8740 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NqB1Ixf9L_DS for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:22 -0800 (PST) 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 7B1311A8753 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so28164721igb.5 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:32:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Zps4I2k0EteIHYtnzU88SMQ9FFkijQhJ1ltTmEw/ugs=; b=PpvXD3rQ9oXeWo18DWlG2CKgrXqxLstXjxt9+PBAfZvAmTALSd9coCB2+a/UuTnwbz YAAbO+JjJytKrBQXpWW5cz5LQ3QnyjqAsjDt/630YnedX5tM35ONJgQjmwp1m0T9mYxD v1v2cOHCN8pQUwMdfMSL+UyNVyvqXSwrEEvBU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Zps4I2k0EteIHYtnzU88SMQ9FFkijQhJ1ltTmEw/ugs=; b=QYoFDLmXcxFQbCHXWPzGp3U7P7E+nnjMBfClbgF2+q6iFtLCHVfJmSd8heU9IMxYHx AwoF1/4Mo+qTUEbTAJTIEwmgUoAWKsfgNa7j2/29suk6/HQmZWD7Aw3Igk0aKocYBwrJ s2fCnkcPgnSo45nZwWqoJyhsWPLK6tsKDVPdnnHc5+y8XkppQe69OqZvitKHF3D3bNis kguMsafh/1wICPg7k/kwOvjHglKFkGj4tcxnpg7gviXFDQ1sq9RiRZ14frZtbhV7j45g QHwFWT0tFNFAuAOCnE/rqNLLSLsjcnM+a4Msncfsdmq980Teeh4s6FhoyEE+bBsA0uet fCSA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnN4NtTVjObyIqyHDnvdNXVxE+G03yMZ1dI/GUlKnlPR/rbyXIwQnp/VlH7mrS9hjiRWo2G MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.51.165 with SMTP id l5mr22926217oeo.69.1425393141668; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.62.172 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:32:21 +0000 Message-ID: From: Dave Cridland To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3093adff39c0510633387 Archived-At: Cc: Donald Eastlake , "diversity@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees) 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, 03 Mar 2015 14:32:24 -0000 --001a11c3093adff39c0510633387 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 3 March 2015 at 02:00, Ted Lemon wrote: > So I really don't know why this keeps coming up. I guess there is some > real anger out there about the current nomcom situation. But if that's > so, this is part of the process of changing that. So you might want to > consider not shooting the messenger. > I'm not shooting the messenger intentionally at least; I am trying to shoot the message. I would rather avoid any kind of participation requiring fees, most especially any kind of participation we consider to be particularly useful. This implies major changes to how IETF funding works. I did suggest at one point that if we re-evaluated what we use the physical meetings for, we might continue to charge for them and in addition increase the value to the community from them, but I'm not sure anyone picked up on that, so I'll repeat that here: We've tended to berate those who turn up to physical WG meetings having not read the drafts; we also say we like physical meetings spanning the entire IETF because this enables cross-area review and discussion. If the meetings focussed strictly on cross-area review, then each working group meeting would then best be used presenting the state of its work to people assumed not to have read the drafts. This would mean that (for example) Apps people can keep up to date on what the TLS working group are doing without having to pore over drafts which understandably expect a deep understanding of commsec and crypto. This becomes useful to industry, which can then more easily keep up to date with the current work without the sizable investment of time in tracking a working group. This really is a trade-off worth actual money; but it entirely shifts what we use the meetings for currently (a set of concurrent but disconnected meetings alongside some arguably more important discussions in corridors). Another discussion we could have is to ask what problem the hallway conversations are actually solving, and whether we could address that in a way that was more logistically and financially inclusive. Dave. --001a11c3093adff39c0510633387 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 3= March 2015 at 02:00, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> = wrote:
So I really don't know why thi= s keeps coming up.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I guess there is some real anger out there a= bout the current nomcom situation.=C2=A0 =C2=A0But if that's so, this i= s part of the process of changing that.=C2=A0 =C2=A0So you might want to co= nsider not shooting the messenger.

I= 9;m not shooting the messenger intentionally at least; I am trying to shoot= the message.

I would rather avoid any kind of par= ticipation requiring fees, most especially any kind of participation we con= sider to be particularly useful. This implies major changes to how IETF fun= ding works.

I did suggest at one point that if we = re-evaluated what we use the physical meetings for, we might continue to ch= arge for them and in addition increase the value to the community from them= , but I'm not sure anyone picked up on that, so I'll repeat that he= re:

We've tended to berate those who turn up t= o physical WG meetings having not read the drafts; we also say we like phys= ical meetings spanning the entire IETF because this enables cross-area revi= ew and discussion.

If the meetings focussed strict= ly on cross-area review, then each working group meeting would then best be= used presenting the state of its work to people assumed not to have read t= he drafts. This would mean that (for example) Apps people can keep up to da= te on what the TLS working group are doing without having to pore over draf= ts which understandably expect a deep understanding of commsec and crypto.<= /div>

This becomes useful to industry, which can then mo= re easily keep up to date with the current work without the sizable investm= ent of time in tracking a working group. This really is a trade-off worth a= ctual money; but it entirely shifts what we use the meetings for currently = (a set of concurrent but disconnected meetings alongside some arguably more= important discussions in corridors).

Another disc= ussion we could have is to ask what problem the hallway conversations are a= ctually solving, and whether we could address that in a way that was more l= ogistically and financially inclusive.

Dave.
=
--001a11c3093adff39c0510633387-- From nobody Wed Mar 18 16:34:09 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 E57131A9153 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:34:07 -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_40=-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 2O2omJnr2FC8 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:34:07 -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 151791A9144 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.193.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2INXlgx012901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:33:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1426721641; x=1426808041; bh=GNmccgHFlilZXJ91wDmNuhjI7+Od8/0Bh2uawccSil8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=0JV5a4AEfQrAuZJkpUXAaeNZC7Q8yECq/JmX+GYay76x743HZ82lU1vAHX68bww5h UiMOWq8/ywqzRj+Iz8FkYIvtRhHjqBPqxV3HGPFRkfgDSxLt5hJXyS5NnMnZcbWzfV KPnkxrJKZcrz4wXHnXz80F85hjCkqnmBhtCsCeOI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1426721641; x=1426808041; i=@elandsys.com; bh=GNmccgHFlilZXJ91wDmNuhjI7+Od8/0Bh2uawccSil8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=DkPyX6NYcwmXxu8u1ceJ2YrMt75IP0W5Cs6MOedj5j2r8VzaxRseTxnxWYw/BVjSi w5hRJElyswnnVlb/4VzL9Rl9y32iZCrJjrFsWiwh1mZtttHgY8rVoYWZjugVA5O6gY YnumTkNroPNwUS6ZHDoIiSoZ6hF90vRQXGQpzWFU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:33:40 -0700 To: Dave Crocker , Narelle Clark From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: [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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:34:08 -0000 Hi Dave, Narelle, I have been assigned by the ISE to review draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01. I apologize for the delay in delivering the review. Summary: draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01 discusses about the the nature and practicalities of IETF attention to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional demeanor. Comments for author: Section 1 of the document provides background information about the Internet Engineering Task Force. The rest of the section discusses about issues relating to the conduct of IETF participants. Section 2 discusses and diversity, bullying and harassment. Section 3 discusses about constructive participation. Section 4 discusses about unconstructive participation. Is there is a link between diversity and professional conduct? Would, for example, an aggressive culture cause diversity issues? My response to those questions would be that there is a link. Would would be the view of the average reader, especially someone who does not know much about the IETF, after reading the document? The IETF might be viewed as an organisation comprised of "well-funded, American, white, male engineers" with a harassment or bullying problem to fix. Section 2.2 does not fit in as it break the flow, i.e. the draft is discussing about the IETF issues, it then discusses about the nature and extent of bullying, then gets back to the IETF participation, and after that discusses about the IETF Track record. It then discusses about participation again. I suggest that the authors consider looking at the material in the draft as follows: 1. Background information about the IETF 2. Documented cases of problems with adequate consideration to anonymity 3. What did the IETF do about it 4. What was wrong in (3) 5. What do the authors propose (optional) The draft does not reference RFC 3774. Shouldn't that RFC be taken into consideration for Section 1 given that the section provides some historical information? The question I have to answer is why should this document be published in the Independent Submissions Stream. Could the authors help me answer that question? Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Wed Mar 18 18:01:23 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 9097A1AC3C9 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:22 -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 tS7M2y3okPuQ for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:20 -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 C3A0D1A6FF0 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:20 -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 t2J1143Z007075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:07 -0700 Message-ID: <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:00 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@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]); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:01:07 -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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 01:01:22 -0000 SM, As always, thank you for such thoughtful comments. Some quick responses. (These are my own; Narelle might have others.) On 3/18/2015 4:33 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Is there is a link between diversity and professional conduct? Would, > for example, an aggressive culture cause diversity issues? I thought (and think) that the draft discusses exactly this point, and at length. It specifically asserts that aggressive behavior is a disincentive for participation by those from polite societies. And it asserts that bullying and harassment -- one hopes those qualify as unprofessional conduct -- marginalize targeted participants. > My response > to those questions would be that there is a link. Would would be the > view of the average reader, especially someone who does not know much > about the IETF, after reading the document? The IETF might be viewed as > an organisation comprised of "well-funded, American, white, male > engineers" with a harassment or bullying problem to fix. That quoted text described the /origins/ of the IETF. Later text noted that participation now is far more open and diverse. > Section 2.2 does not fit in as it break the flow, i.e. the draft is > discussing about the IETF issues, it then discusses about the nature and > extent of bullying, then gets back to the IETF participation, and after > that discusses about the IETF Track record. It then discusses about > participation again. I suggest that the authors consider looking at the > material in the draft as follows: Section 2 describes the nature of diversity, the nature of attempts to ensure it, and the nature of some important problems that work against it. Section 2.2 focuses on a distinctive aspect of IETF culture that works against practical diversity. One could have other sections discussing other factors, but you won't be surprised to hear that I think harassment and bullying are central issues in the IETF culture that work against constructive diversity. > The draft does not reference RFC 3774. The draft is not seeking to cite or deal with a wide range of issues. Nor is it trying to review other discussions of surrounding issues. Those issues are important and that RFC is useful. But I don't see that citing it alters the current draft meaningfully. > Shouldn't that RFC be taken into > consideration for Section 1 given that the section provides some > historical information? The historical discussion is focused solely on forces that have worked against diversity and against constructive, respectful discourse. > The question I have to answer is why should this document be published > in the Independent Submissions Stream. Could the authors help me answer > that question? The draft is not a specification. It does not offer normative statements about policy or practice. Rather, it is a think-piece, that is, a discussion of issues. What would be the benefits in having it processed through the IETF stream? What would be the risks? In considering Independent stream, my feeling was (and remains) that a document of this sort is a personal offering. Hence the Independent stream. If there were some sort of outpouring of interest in having it in the IETF stream, that would be fine, but I'm not expecting it, nor do I think it significantly affects the document's relevance or utility. But again, thank you for the comments. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Wed Mar 18 19:13:21 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 03C1E1A7D84 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ML8JNuGu0D65 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:13:20 -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 37CB31A6FF2 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.193.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2J2Cw2X015736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:13:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1426731194; x=1426817594; bh=aCPl9FSE6vEpZIknswTzEDInP6VKCZkTq51tb0YoAyg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NL0A2JWbMShwPX9JiuJG0Jt4uZcv1svNIlzobzfH8VOh/G+9E47FTZr05FQdtc6WK Nwj+S7HMWWUnzpUt/fZyf7T2UKF8ThXYt8tvdTQlnNWOE4IHVYne7UHNPRpeq3P6yT 03XtMiN0wKkj1SPSW3wlPOewPPNbOg3rYb2dmadU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1426731194; x=1426817594; i=@elandsys.com; bh=aCPl9FSE6vEpZIknswTzEDInP6VKCZkTq51tb0YoAyg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ogtG0pr8Of7jLDNBM/MXl6HChf4+Lw3Pr9dJFip9yX/nYBMfCZHleN3RedpiZXGwE W6jwJEh5Dfiz/hzUmRNUEmnIekVY6P/PzkN1GU1BqBD++xeR2/ur3I8lZC6NQAK1xv P5IPT5bTr16lueNR7ity8VCX9nxZhnSzzi0S6m2A= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318182512.114ed198@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:12:35 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:13:21 -0000 Hi Dave, At 18:01 18-03-2015, Dave Crocker wrote: >The draft is not a specification. It does not offer normative statements >about policy or practice. Rather, it is a think-piece, that is, a >discussion of issues. > >What would be the benefits in having it processed through the IETF >stream? What would be the risks? > >In considering Independent stream, my feeling was (and remains) that a >document of this sort is a personal offering. Hence the Independent stream. > >If there were some sort of outpouring of interest in having it in the >IETF stream, that would be fine, but I'm not expecting it, nor do I >think it significantly affects the document's relevance or utility. I'll response to the specific point about the Independent Submissions Stream and follow up on the other parts in a few days. Here's how I look at the document in respect to publication in the stream. The document is about the IETF. The IETF has a stream. The default place for it to be published would be in that stream. I also look at how a documents fits within the Independent Submissions Stream. It's quite straightforward for a specification as there is some guidance about that. It is less obvious for this draft as I have to figure out in which other category to fit it in. The benefit of processing through the IETF Stream is that it could be read as meaning that the IETF is mature enough to handle self-criticism. The risk is that the draft may not gain consensus. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Wed Mar 18 19:14:47 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 57EEB1A7D84 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:14:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 OH0qAY4-MDM4 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:14:45 -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 9290D1A6FF2 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.193.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2J2ETdZ010367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:14:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1426731281; x=1426817681; bh=aCPl9FSE6vEpZIknswTzEDInP6VKCZkTq51tb0YoAyg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gvoYZkFOlyVA2QkFL2HmZC8oPMo4P9Mn57Fd0nMDvGdds73yoC3ljYU/s9df6tmAi +dkZKtoKwDLXDsias4+sTHWzz42fgMWCDGqQc5fNo5Ojsfh87mnTgiLcK/Ul315Lq+ BqWAqaN60moaYhKOHSJIFaUuMhrrKrvc0tadJe60= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1426731281; x=1426817681; i=@elandsys.com; bh=aCPl9FSE6vEpZIknswTzEDInP6VKCZkTq51tb0YoAyg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=B5jToWrNhuS+/XQNtXZFjhcV4NHHlayw/m8l/eJkrQHwT19t7Qm91s7Yjlr1Kk37+ 0Nbqowtus0G97rL+dkc7y4pdhn1svKj2nv0TVCU9dzH0bHPk8tfO9/f3zWz1EQKTjh P5zSzNupKsgdVyhjmMM3rWHg6JM26DSuk11FQjxo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318182512.114ed198@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:12:35 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:14:46 -0000 Hi Dave, At 18:01 18-03-2015, Dave Crocker wrote: >The draft is not a specification. It does not offer normative statements >about policy or practice. Rather, it is a think-piece, that is, a >discussion of issues. > >What would be the benefits in having it processed through the IETF >stream? What would be the risks? > >In considering Independent stream, my feeling was (and remains) that a >document of this sort is a personal offering. Hence the Independent stream. > >If there were some sort of outpouring of interest in having it in the >IETF stream, that would be fine, but I'm not expecting it, nor do I >think it significantly affects the document's relevance or utility. I'll response to the specific point about the Independent Submissions Stream and follow up on the other parts in a few days. Here's how I look at the document in respect to publication in the stream. The document is about the IETF. The IETF has a stream. The default place for it to be published would be in that stream. I also look at how a documents fits within the Independent Submissions Stream. It's quite straightforward for a specification as there is some guidance about that. It is less obvious for this draft as I have to figure out in which other category to fit it in. The benefit of processing through the IETF Stream is that it could be read as meaning that the IETF is mature enough to handle self-criticism. The risk is that the draft may not gain consensus. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Wed Mar 18 21:40:46 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 4F56B1A8790 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:45 -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 cD6n_CRfVey6 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:43 -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 DE4251A876D for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:43 -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 t2J4eGNs009888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:19 -0700 Message-ID: <550A532B.3030201@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:11 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150318182512.114ed198@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318182512.114ed198@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]); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:40:20 -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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:40:45 -0000 On 3/18/2015 7:12 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > I'll response to the specific point about the Independent Submissions > Stream and follow up on the other parts in a few days. > > Here's how I look at the document in respect to publication in the > stream. The document is about the IETF. The IETF has a stream. The > default place for it to be published would be in that stream. SM, You appear to be saying that all documents "about" the IETF have to be submitted through the IETF stream. I can't tell whether you see your use of 'should' as your personal opinion or as an RFC stream requirement. I am not aware of any requirement that matches what you've said. Quite the contrary. I believe the scope of the Independent stream covers a personal document like this entirely reasonably. So the issue is whether it is somehow better to have it go through the IETF stream. I see two factors to consider. One is whether there is sufficient community interest in the document? The other is whether there is significant benefit in going through an IETF rough consensus approval process? I don't see the answer being yes to either question? Some benefit, perhaps, but not enough to be worth the considerably greater effort. > I also > look at how a documents fits within the Independent Submissions Stream. > It's quite straightforward for a specification as there is some guidance > about that. It is less obvious for this draft as I have to figure out > in which other category to fit it in. Perhaps you should review the requirements for Independent Stream. For example, on: https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html "The independent submission stream allows RFC publication for some documents that are outside the official IETF/IAB/IRTF process but are relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels of technical and editorial quality. " That's pretty general and this document certainly falls within that scope, as I read it. > > The benefit of processing through the IETF Stream is that it could be > read as meaning that the IETF is mature enough to handle > self-criticism. The risk is that the draft may not gain consensus. As I said in my previous note, that would be fine if there were more community interest. The draft has been around for quite awhile but has received minimal comment. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Thu Mar 19 02:47:38 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 3BAD91A1BAE for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:47:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 uFQ7BE6L1Qb7 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:47:36 -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 236CB1A00C0 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.193.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2J9lCXr008934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:47:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1426758448; x=1426844848; bh=X4ryKycWkx3V9mBlqNqjrMt4YOhuDNWI2hJxwo4Fe4I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=yc87BI9n/t0ZmAEP/LDidXANl/Z52/ARZqj4S03ZOc26Yv0sDTBhc3J9UY1kQbNsp 45atyHn5j4cBT5yBWl/wUUd07Qdl3ihfHN2jJNWdUff+L89Tzeg4tD88B36gNIQt8P UW814kxe7rhwmLeRqF+rqHWxCFfia4iieGf6X9Lg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1426758448; x=1426844848; i=@elandsys.com; bh=X4ryKycWkx3V9mBlqNqjrMt4YOhuDNWI2hJxwo4Fe4I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=KX44G5CARNqSYNsKlaqb/GBHHLS8qTjgG5+jfUZx9Q+ykL52N4+GBFANzG7VcuWyK p5S1oJ6QdIPtN+DgpwqxdKUwcvcmf/8wX/ri/72r5lCZTns3KbMFurPo1EjiY0JlsN fg75lMBaNrZBpp8sXINC9l26pcvegTCHu+rsv6YM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20150319015131.0ddbf930@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:22:01 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, S Moonesamy From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <550A532B.3030201@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150318182512.114ed198@elandnews.com> <550A532B.3030201@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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:47:37 -0000 Hi Dave, At 21:40 18-03-2015, Dave Crocker wrote: >You appear to be saying that all documents "about" the IETF have to be >submitted through the IETF stream. If I am writing a draft about diversity in the IETF (I wrote one previously) I would initially try to get it published within the IETF. If there isn't the outpouring of interest I would look for another venue. >I can't tell whether you see your use of 'should' as your personal >opinion or as an RFC stream requirement. I am not aware of any >requirement that matches what you've said. Quite the contrary. I >believe the scope of the Independent stream covers a personal document >like this entirely reasonably. It is not a RFC stream requirement. I'll comment more about this below. >So the issue is whether it is somehow better to have it go through the >IETF stream. I see two factors to consider. One is whether there is >sufficient community interest in the document? The other is whether >there is significant benefit in going through an IETF rough consensus >approval process? I don't see the answer being yes to either question? > Some benefit, perhaps, but not enough to be worth the considerably >greater effort. Ok. >Perhaps you should review the requirements for Independent Stream. For >example, on: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html > > "The independent submission stream allows RFC publication for some >documents that are outside the official IETF/IAB/IRTF process but are >relevant to the Internet community and achieve reasonable levels of >technical and editorial quality. " > >That's pretty general and this document certainly falls within that >scope, as I read it. The requirement is quite generic. I cannot assess the level of technical quality as the draft is not a technical specification. As for the editorial quality the draft is well-written but it is not that crisp. The draft is at least relevant to a part of the Internet community. I usually refer to RFC 4846 before making a recommendation about publication in the Independent Submissions Stream. I suggest not considering the publication steam as a concern as we had this conversation about it. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Mar 19 05:08:07 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 14BA51A8997 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:08:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 aKkw27-zXgyk for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:08:04 -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 7260C1A8998 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.200.77]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2JC7kcA006581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1426766879; x=1426853279; bh=ep6vL8HCulthb+asd/pvY0V0u4L6CSn8D1LCHoHiKd4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=LkqBlGKr9AJ7p7nmj763QrjYA0MCqdBpKzfEqLPDfGPwpZZ5L/Mhh2f7owRTp0Ffu GMFz6s10viL9Eps/5tD7EtTvb5UN7qCnBFpJJG9zrMmvRk0s8H0T/rn1eMa/S4aE0m SY3Hu0OeR4fJGG5q44WKkbP9tC8do7B8ACb0Uuss= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1426766879; x=1426853279; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ep6vL8HCulthb+asd/pvY0V0u4L6CSn8D1LCHoHiKd4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=W7kpAT8+1bF4TRh5a2OyQPksJ0ds38eynNPhGLAvnw2kRZksYHUsIOLqRYyp3JyW0 G0Rr/42bUJL2prPpES5BGFhMncNyEFHjuZStKTkp+DgNG60x0uPb9+PZzNYhHqtzLJ YqRfSm/k6ThsEY2r+YNwCO7CBlEl6HypImsWHHOU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20150319022613.1094bd48@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:06:54 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:08:06 -0000 Hi Dave, At 18:01 18-03-2015, Dave Crocker wrote: >Some quick responses. (These are my own; Narelle might have others.) [snip] >I thought (and think) that the draft discusses exactly this point, and >at length. > >It specifically asserts that aggressive behavior is a disincentive for >participation by those from polite societies. And it asserts that >bullying and harassment -- one hopes those qualify as unprofessional >conduct -- marginalize targeted participants. [snip] >That quoted text described the /origins/ of the IETF. Later text noted >that participation now is far more open and diverse. [snip] >Section 2 describes the nature of diversity, the nature of attempts to >ensure it, and the nature of some important problems that work against >it. Section 2.2 focuses on a distinctive aspect of IETF culture that >works against practical diversity. One could have other sections >discussing other factors, but you won't be surprised to hear that I >think harassment and bullying are central issues in the IETF culture >that work against constructive diversity. [snip] >The draft is not seeking to cite or deal with a wide range of issues. >Nor is it trying to review other discussions of surrounding issues. > >Those issues are important and that RFC is useful. But I don't see that >citing it alters the current draft meaningfully. [snip] >The historical discussion is focused solely on forces that have worked >against diversity and against constructive, respectful discourse. I'll comment about the content of the draft in this message. I am not surprised to hear that harassment and bullying are viewed as central issues. I am fine with the publication of a personal view about that and I'll commend the authors for taking up the challenge. 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). I agree that citing RFC 3774 is not meaningful. 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." 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". 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? Section 2.1 mentions several other variables. However, the rest of the draft does not contain any discussion about those variables. 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. From Section 3.1: "In speech, it means speaking more deliberately, a bit more clearly and a bit more slowly than one needs with close collaborators. When language is cryptic or filled with linguistic idiosyncrasies and when speech is too fast, it is dramatically less accessible to a diverse audience. From a diversity perspective the speaker would also have to avoid some cultural references, e.g. not expecting that all the participants are familiar with baseball. From a participation perspective the above comes out as "speak slowly" instead of "get down to the level of your audience if you would like people to understand what you are saying". 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". 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 Nits: In the Introduction Section: "IAB members and IAOC members" I suggest expanding the acronyms on first use as it was done for "IETF". Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Mar 19 07:03:51 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 195A31AC3FB for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:50 -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 r9Aj-Zvsq7A5 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:48 -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 8B6E61AC3E5 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:48 -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 t2JE3U5d028620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:34 -0700 Message-ID: <550AD72E.1080809@bbiw.net> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:26 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20150318073552.06f93688@elandnews.com> <550A1FCC.2010903@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150318182512.114ed198@elandnews.com> <550A532B.3030201@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20150319015131.0ddbf930@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20150319015131.0ddbf930@elandnews.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 [72.52.113.67]); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:03:34 -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 List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:03:50 -0000 On 3/19/2015 2:22 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > I suggest not considering the publication steam as a concern as we had > this conversation about it. ok. thanks. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Mar 30 01:19:34 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 D728E1A9231 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:19:32 -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 1zDHM0RyRZ5u for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 E71271A9237 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgh3 with SMTP id 3so165381148qgh.2 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:19:30 -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=mZVs2V3WwK8GBRzVhDnUv/Qn6yX0rigkrbEHsg/K8kA=; b=uUNXG1vrAcI29XZSonXJRL1J1fIyeESldGik61OyhpYaolG+Mt+Uw2GVIHvBZ/tzZh GeG+iiVJ5SUkZ8p0uGVP5J8TKrOOEgOZSVwXC284NCzTLhTUx9GSTqoe/9AHbSb4/m2u N9aSSm1lP3bc023Yd7lytDLBHwmejYj9rhCa/4K/8iqqAHHx5aAN+PptqlMM/uCVF2T3 /2bzSHTPSarcwJxFwjfOM4xGOKtlKPIOq/c+7vIpg5UC/RgQ8aAuccWUYK9e8+Jl42LG M2z6UO5X7eesHnBG27E+Dpw1zBCcUHBAQNF37j1o2j5FMYvpkRQDxnN+nOV+89DXeBqi Itcg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.52.67 with SMTP id b64mr14215687qka.47.1427703570262; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.97.4 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:19:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "diversity@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11497edc266e7505127d24a5 Archived-At: Subject: [Diversity] Cyberbulling 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, 30 Mar 2015 08:19:33 -0000 --001a11497edc266e7505127d24a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I hope that IETF prevents and deletes any cyberbulling. How could we define it. In Wikipedia Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as:- -actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others. -use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another perso -use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person. Regards AB --001a11497edc266e7505127d24a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I hope that IETF prevents and deletes any cyberbullin= g.

How could we define it. In Wikipedia Cyberbully= ing is defined in legal glossaries as:-

-actions t= hat use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, r= epeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended t= o harm another or others.

-use of communication te= chnologies for the intention of harming another perso

<= div>-use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and = discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with t= he intention of harming another person.


=
Regards
AB
--001a11497edc266e7505127d24a5-- From nobody Mon Mar 30 06:29:29 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 E7E261A899F for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:29:26 -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 jdiawqF2P8P4 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 541091ACEB1 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgh3 with SMTP id 3so171888331qgh.2 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:29:24 -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=CEmfNi2+7LNZnmoHdiICJ1vwtxHZgW1eR+SChTnZBiU=; b=NNyx2Wpu/85D83fXblNToKA32G0UgyZEpzn/oYeRcxbiYrkNPwlMmpzGQ20CJHUuV/ H7p8LvMeY33A8fK6W5i3ZW8OhF2rpAS9KVcxSAM7pf0k2N6TdrLz9rBgwjP3s+RzGHWW euVzZY5mTVYKhvN5xnsIim9RFg2BPQP3pGBhS+lNygcIe3rrVAzdrsR1idc+6AE0YdmP XyLvU/AssNg+EF30xqDE+s7ZNjCqjPbieDsg3cIm9xoOUoK/JIg2Qu8WFpmawge22RzU CGjztE1v2POPlf1hpEwD06QrIgTBJeJL7+lCsx0qWmVpD5gJg9S6b2xNaWbxZZsRbLki oudA== X-Received: by 10.140.144.139 with SMTP id 133mr43291054qhq.1.1427722164491; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (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 m7sm7677160qkh.26.2015.03.30.06.29.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:29:23 -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 (11D257) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 09:29:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8C3DC7C6-E436-4200-AD7D-B065A32D203D@gmail.com> References: To: Abdussalam Baryun Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Cyberbulling 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, 30 Mar 2015 13:29:27 -0000 Hi AB, This is handled by the sergeant in arms on our mailing lists. ADs and chair= s also intervene as needed. Thanks, Kathleen Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:19 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >=20 > I hope that IETF prevents and deletes any cyberbulling. >=20 > How could we define it. In Wikipedia Cyberbullying is defined in legal glo= ssaries as:- >=20 > -actions that use information and communication technologies to support de= liberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is i= ntended to harm another or others. >=20 > -use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another pe= rso >=20 > -use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and dis= cussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the i= ntention of harming another person. >=20 >=20 > Regards > AB > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity