From nobody Sat Dec 5 20:07:46 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 3E57D1B306E for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:07:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 dzcntUjqNL8L for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:07:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44CC1B306D for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:07:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tB647BkS029060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:07:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1449374863; x=1449461263; bh=jWlvhLTJ/QuVXofyBtoUPFMRSXqLfmjndVj2YzBmD0M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=Bxnaz4ZHAo5iHk8tPclftKPuTgXDu0ncPRETR3+tLKRV8H7Fol0TJ606R/6KlkNpL A/HQe601ENpo41a9jqSIPx0kf8qrNAKSQNjwHBTCUgzR8uTq6g30OQU1kdWzd4cnB9 nO9bsxivSTIOGgVu8Zm6eR0XV/aUeKVHIMKNtnVw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1449374863; x=1449461263; i=@resistor.net; bh=jWlvhLTJ/QuVXofyBtoUPFMRSXqLfmjndVj2YzBmD0M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=fhFcHJN02BRNQpEtpcPrSz3HPeTJmnaN/KEBHM227K58NITwXkYtnBwzSsCvFdhiP 1pkvndTkWVezNE2DpjWF6UOZvHejmCb7z4mIWn2GDH50t+FTsr+IZeuVGfzdh1q1Dz ZefVVYxj9Oo61CbaUhxG7r9aq+pQD2uRiCQqWQ1o= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:58:44 -0800 To: diversity@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 06 Dec 2015 04:07:45 -0000 Hello, There is an IETF Diversity Update by the IETF Chair and the Security Area Director on the IETF blog. The graph displays a breakdown of IESG membership by gender and by U.S. versus non-U.S. That's different from the breakdown listed at https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/facebook-eeo-1-report-2013.pdf There are some comments at http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12/02/ietfs_white_men_urged_to_tone_it_down/ I'll pick one of them: "That was published in 2001 (female author BTW) and updated last year (non-WASP editor BTW)". On reading more [1], I came across this: "Many people who don't have a drop of malice or prejudice but happen to be older or distant from university, media and government spheres find themselves tainted as bigots for innocently using passed terms ..." Regards, -sm 1. http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyorktimes.pdf From nobody Sun Dec 6 04:59:18 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 BB5B41B3336 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 04:59:16 -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 zegOwggfX3_I for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 04:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (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 26AB41B3335 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 04:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by qkeg192 with SMTP id g192so16095743qke.1 for ; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 04:59:14 -0800 (PST) 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=u11Ja2xRB4pKR5Vu6ePGDBGYk5Bm87jeSv0bKIRmTSE=; b=OWwXvpgpJk0cYWNhrGAia52FLKXGERuZJ6v+U5NCmNpqtjM33OtVjF6/Ne/PTfq2RS EdsrjzfO+mNHQ4X95k9MO+yN0DmwR8XkeUeXH48hFSj6r+wyysdhEZD2tUMFMthRYdRv ptGbM7RTOU6EYAnP92n+UHYRM3THBoy+7cx3FybBqbZo4nuB1dGDcInl2NID0QyMElO4 Bdr/Z3sTPzI/LvMgukUAqqdLpHNLJlIA2o3ZUsnRX9ltkRAIZJUCi0EBwv91WidT+7ZX Is1WYT+Jsl1g7/vw6+DUiX3qLZjCsF55UVGl8pRTmL4qdH2SoEcl/B8LGPK62Ewac7PV n2mQ== X-Received: by 10.55.48.130 with SMTP id w124mr29226095qkw.79.1449406754285; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 04:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.3.0] ([65.200.157.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z72sm9162243qkz.46.2015.12.06.04.59.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Dec 2015 04:59:13 -0800 (PST) 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 (12H143) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 07:59:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> To: SM Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 06 Dec 2015 12:59:16 -0000 Thanks, SM. The blog was from me as an individual and the chart from Jari. I do think we've come a long way in the past few years and am sad to see no a= cknowledgement of that except mine in any of these posts. Sure, there's lot= s to be done and I clearly see the issues, but think without some acknowledg= ment of progress, it's hard to make more or to get people to come to an IETF= to make a judgment call of their own. Kathleen=20 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 5, 2015, at 8:58 PM, SM wrote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > There is an IETF Diversity Update by the IETF Chair and the Security Area D= irector on the IETF blog. The graph displays a breakdown of IESG membership= by gender and by U.S. versus non-U.S. That's different from the breakdown l= isted at https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/facebook-eeo-1-rep= ort-2013.pdf >=20 > There are some comments at http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12= /02/ietfs_white_men_urged_to_tone_it_down/ I'll pick one of them: "That was p= ublished in 2001 (female author BTW) and updated last year (non-WASP editor B= TW)". On reading more [1], I came across this: "Many people who don't have a= drop of malice or prejudice but happen to be older or distant from universi= ty, media and government spheres find themselves tainted as bigots for innoc= ently using passed terms ..." >=20 > Regards, > -sm >=20 > 1. http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyorktimes.pdf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity From nobody Mon Dec 7 03:03:39 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 9930B1A1B77 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 03:03:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AN1__rqdGjXt for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 03:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757301A1B53 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 03:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tB7B3K4q000396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 03:03:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1449486205; x=1449572605; bh=sKCHRY1+3/3LurG5jYbqwiz8gjMfv8/HaLNTD/ZlDng=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kW4+k/z5ltNf4qSgOLe/lgo2PU94yjDVmGF8ZT60M198uRl/rGGzsPXgsHFMNxJpZ pqBOFeGgD+FchA9dag23VJqSf+m6kW4Tv9jZgmmY2v6wnM0HWE3IfM1sEdLMwrgWfQ C3OrzgLxlX+IkpGkAxA4XobldWiEuSMt/9CrE6Ww= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1449486205; x=1449572605; i=@resistor.net; bh=sKCHRY1+3/3LurG5jYbqwiz8gjMfv8/HaLNTD/ZlDng=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=tAfld2OvieKkTjPbowqRPvvDZd9jJ+ZQpnVRii1kxr5N6u4fNkaA8tIHO3JYP1xrf QkAR1oFsm0ZCGfSrO4MIW2KMXNMNn+kCTYCIvKa5Ro40U+7x+YaFwd91ObjAvmGPvK hrw6i/ZSpx03OyVwxWl9+BTPUD3Vx+cGzd7UYiww= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 02:51:51 -0800 To: Kathleen Moriarty , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 07 Dec 2015 11:03:37 -0000 Hi Kathleen, At 04:59 06-12-2015, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >I do think we've come a long way in the past few years and am sad to >see no acknowledgement of that except mine in any of these >posts. Sure, there's lots to be done and I clearly see the issues, >but think without some acknowledgment of progress, it's hard to make >more or to get people to come to an IETF to make a judgment call of their own. I'll comment by taking a glimpse at the IETF mailing list as I did a year or more ago. Over the last two weeks, there were two messages from female participants. Both of those messages are from Area Directors. There was a message from a participant in Africa which was a vote of support for a call about selecting members of a non-IETF board. There wasn't any message from Latin America. I took a cursory look at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg95497.html I did not find any female participant. Here are the numbers by hemisphere: North 26 South 2 I used place of residence instead of characteristics of a person for the above. The graph from Jari shows U.S. versus rest of the world. I'll use the statistics from Jari for a author/continent breakdown (recent RFCs): North America 78% Europe 64% Asia 22% Australia 5% I skipped the other regions of the world as the numbers are lower than 1%. I looked at current IESG membership; the members are either residents of the U.S. or Europe. What has changed in the IETF over the last few years? There are more female IESG members from the U.S./Europe. The statistics silently ignores everything else. Does it make a difference for a woman residing in the U.S./Europe if there are more women on the IESG? Does it make a different for a woman residing outside the U.S./Europe? The better answer would be from a person in those regions. An ISOC Trustee stated the following: "It's become clear that there are systemic issues". If there is any issue, it would be that the person who openly speak/write will face negative action. Everyone else will see the consequences and will not dare to openly speak/write. Regards, -sm From nobody Fri Dec 11 11:02:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB781A0065 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:02:13 -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 PBkL0qGWglDo for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 B1AC91A001A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by qkdp187 with SMTP id p187so52787420qkd.1 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:02:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tiD3yv/miFgSHO+sHOA9HA9QfTzh/WsVuELgUDk4KDE=; b=0BHUZMddX3AgZ9kwldII/21OgRHDintgAJZdW+g1gCdElxIZEZ3SgMU9AcghwouAOa LK+VrhKFryggqNZNi0TyGgNG2K/Bkah43rpWloyVxZUFfHO5akw50HnajIA42FMvWzOY J36Z8WJICOkUJPmifGQWGWq2f67GZhLb9gS4aWZNinOBjBGPRtJf3v8+qpbx2tpjZ0T2 crhO5fd0dZVtBm8CDQnVQAMzrMq7ZgsPG1P09m2jr3o0srJaks3k9VTuizs4sRjg3bwV wU16bNd/RNF8CHNWy1MgAU8Hej3vt8VBx8Nhc0xhXRydvQaues96zCAsdYgq6Ua2ndnu 04Ig== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.212.92 with SMTP id l89mr26542502qki.70.1449860524512; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:02:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:02:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: SM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149de9c924fae0526a3f5ee Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 19:02:13 -0000 --001a1149de9c924fae0526a3f5ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My update to the subject is that still IETF management need to do more work to encourage diversity in IETF, and to discourage anti-diversity. People working in groups may don't see usefulness of diversity because their aim is speed in processing their work. The WG chairs need to work harder to engage more input and discussions from all the world. How can we measure the level of progress in diversity? AB On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:58 AM, SM wrote: > Hello, > > There is an IETF Diversity Update by the IETF Chair and the Security Area > Director on the IETF blog. The graph displays a breakdown of IESG > membership by gender and by U.S. versus non-U.S. That's different from the > breakdown listed at > https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/facebook-eeo-1-report-2013.pdf > > There are some comments at > http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12/02/ietfs_white_men_urged_to_tone_it_down/ > I'll pick one of them: "That was published in 2001 (female author BTW) and > updated last year (non-WASP editor BTW)". On reading more [1], I came > across this: "Many people who don't have a drop of malice or prejudice but > happen to be older or distant from university, media and government spheres > find themselves tainted as bigots for innocently using passed terms ..." > > Regards, > -sm > > 1. http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyorktimes.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > --001a1149de9c924fae0526a3f5ee Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My update to the subject is that still IETF managemen= t need to do more work to encourage diversity in IETF, and to discourage an= ti-diversity. People working in groups may don't see usefulness of dive= rsity because their aim is speed in processing their work. The WG chairs ne= ed to work harder to engage more input and discussions from all the world.<= br>=C2=A0How can we measure the level of progress in diversity?

AB

On = Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:58 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
Hello,

There is an IETF Diversity Update by the IETF Chair and the Security Area D= irector on the IETF blog.=C2=A0 The graph displays a breakdown of IESG memb= ership by gender and by U.S. versus non-U.S.=C2=A0 That's different fro= m the breakdown listed at https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/facebook-eeo-1-report= -2013.pdf

There are some comments at http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/12/02/ietfs_wh= ite_men_urged_to_tone_it_down/ I'll pick one of them: "That wa= s published in 2001 (female author BTW) and updated last year (non-WASP edi= tor BTW)".=C2=A0 On reading more [1], I came across this: "Many p= eople who don't have a drop of malice or prejudice but happen to be old= er or distant from university, media and government spheres find themselves= tainted as bigots for innocently using passed terms ..."

Regards,
-sm

1. http://stevenpinker.com/fil= es/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyorktimes.pdf

_______________________________________________
diversity mailing list
diversity@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity

--001a1149de9c924fae0526a3f5ee-- From nobody Fri Dec 11 12:32:59 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 A02111A86EE for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kCFd4_XUmRK8 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5511A700B for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBBKWh6S003483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1449865969; x=1449952369; bh=vaZUQBCYaHwlSTcGk9RcrLFkdP6N3gOvO0TbUc945XE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=BMYW/uWHc1lxE4Vp2jiow0bGRaN0vdX8p3Zqw7Q8RkypXlDHvkWNeJjr9m7+UdyS0 OzEZgWAURP2mwS2ywcAMewQgSkTaVHGVfLsKtL3+qt4TfSlAsFlOQjXlN0tos6n2z4 N6xc96XnM8AwZDF0mELJsh3KkPxKoHmldLwrHguc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1449865969; x=1449952369; i=@resistor.net; bh=vaZUQBCYaHwlSTcGk9RcrLFkdP6N3gOvO0TbUc945XE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hP7jkntkqWimxkzXH2SfoZhFvbrZES3eDNb4fKH6SVQsr3EQnmTcCAV/b/pSB5dUF ltakyWLdZQZmZ/rx+R2NVO3xejR5keSel2ZjEDnZ5sDg7nu1YYyz/qHaWzBmxRbDdE miWS2U5XjF/Z1YFzZLull0m0VHU470gTcrybg0pY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151211120103.0f131238@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:08:21 -0800 To: Abdussalam Baryun , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:32:57 -0000 Hi Abdussalam, At 11:02 11-12-2015, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >How can we measure the level of progress in diversity? The figures are in my previous email to this mailing list. As it is based on public information, someone else would be able to compile the figures too. Regards, -sm From nobody Fri Dec 11 15:24:20 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 587A71A0461 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:24:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 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, 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 ABNhEo5g7jO6 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 72C671A0143 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by qkck189 with SMTP id k189so26843803qkc.0 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:24:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rBkukTM9SkCVNERe6gR+CCAvpedjkGCTGa61WPEJdVg=; b=rxbIAz2k1+wUGrRpirfzM2VoDBYi0AOr3ll6Bo1Ufc1yYzAqvRxzdxuMTN0/04I+uM cIqYnmkMOfCkGsxx30Do0IhrUKrk/MCaE2yxmErh7cSPz6ridh8jcpkF4T4fdB/aNLPu qlOc/V9ApJPNXHjGMle/V7qYb4ESC7VvRmSdeiuH/++pB/8DnRP99ALshAqe7hdOVbsR Lgk048Qc1Cb+LITN8Q+szlO7JoROzfh/9rxjlGVZ2S4MKKciBwIVSqKtvWDBjxUcjmYu n8z/36X1TLwoH+r7hDalpHaG79Ticc4Almto2WVQ7IgBZvCe1f657FZa4xH6w3VJkoE6 A33g== X-Received: by 10.13.206.135 with SMTP id q129mr10835800ywd.105.1449876256659; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:24:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.2.238] ([201.211.89.210]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y18sm14379044ywd.11.2015.12.11.15.24.15 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:24:15 -0800 (PST) To: diversity@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> From: Alejandro Acosta Message-ID: <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:54:01 -0430 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:24:19 -0000 Hello, My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know each other. Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a WG creation. Regards, Alejandro, I wonder if there is anyway we can El 12/7/2015 a las 6:21 AM, SM escribió: > Hi Kathleen, > At 04:59 06-12-2015, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> I do think we've come a long way in the past few years and am sad to >> see no acknowledgement of that except mine in any of these posts. >> Sure, there's lots to be done and I clearly see the issues, but think >> without some acknowledgment of progress, it's hard to make more or to >> get people to come to an IETF to make a judgment call of their own. > > I'll comment by taking a glimpse at the IETF mailing list as I did a > year or more ago. Over the last two weeks, there were two messages > from female participants. Both of those messages are from Area > Directors. There was a message from a participant in Africa which was > a vote of support for a call about selecting members of a non-IETF > board. There wasn't any message from Latin America. > > I took a cursory look at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg95497.html I did > not find any female participant. Here are the numbers by hemisphere: > > North 26 > South 2 > > I used place of residence instead of characteristics of a person for > the above. > > The graph from Jari shows U.S. versus rest of the world. I'll use the > statistics from Jari for a author/continent breakdown (recent RFCs): > > North America 78% > Europe 64% > Asia 22% > Australia 5% > > I skipped the other regions of the world as the numbers are lower than > 1%. I looked at current IESG membership; the members are either > residents of the U.S. or Europe. > > What has changed in the IETF over the last few years? There are more > female IESG members from the U.S./Europe. The statistics silently > ignores everything else. Does it make a difference for a woman > residing in the U.S./Europe if there are more women on the IESG? Does > it make a different for a woman residing outside the U.S./Europe? The > better answer would be from a person in those regions. > > An ISOC Trustee stated the following: "It's become clear that there > are systemic issues". If there is any issue, it would be that the > person who openly speak/write will face negative action. Everyone > else will see the consequences and will not dare to openly speak/write. > > Regards, > -sm > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity From nobody Fri Dec 11 16:22:29 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 D203B1A889A for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:27 -0800 (PST) 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 BdTbZJX4sutk for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:25 -0800 (PST) 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 D3EE61A8897 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.99] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBC0MOmU023242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:24 -0800 To: Kathleen Moriarty References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> From: Dave Crocker X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking Message-ID: <566B68DC.1090602@bbiw.net> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:52 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.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 [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:24 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 00:22:28 -0000 On 12/6/2015 4:59 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > I do think we've come a long way in the past few years and am sad to see no acknowledgement of that except mine in any of these posts. Sure, there's lots to be done There's lots to be done? That echoes your statement in: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/memo-decries-american-white-male-culture-at-internet-engineering-task-force But I haven't seen your documenting how problems with harassment or bullying have improved, nor have you provided any substance to your statement that there is more to do. I'm aware of 3 cases of invoking the Ombud, each of which were deemed by the person contacting them as a complete failure. Note that the community is provided no information about the performance of this function. (Lest you comment about confidentiality I'll pre-respond by noting that there are all sorts of ways to report such activity that give a useful sense of what is going on without disclosing private information.) We still see overt efforts to squelch contributions through intimidating comments, with no apparent action by IETF management. So please explain, Kathleen, what your basis is for saying that things are so much better than in the bad old days of 2012? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Dec 11 17:35:27 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 055261AC7E8 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:35:26 -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 Wa5TEmFqii14 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:35:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 C8F1E1AC3CE for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id c17so30858518wmd.1 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:35:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NuFtRO9u8P+JEmT8wMNEkg3DvS3HXP0eP5m3jh46isw=; b=uIHdXTX8YdahHFjZbraCFizONTou7GCSETbSCxzt6MEJ3P0BJm5d4zbYx35z6EBMCH m6CQuA9l5/ioUmPENaGhAYFZImx6CN20kZmCS89brs+xKG/warZQD8PCeDGdOLYnU2Dw Ek7zqh9Nlh0QKf/EYH+aZh9Jbtz0oCWxzurU2V083wsGgfsX8dn+qT4XT+JWHqvEEWj0 GTiSOd6t07zw30STyyZbTZdE3+uVQXO4Emwm8OWznSeeUM9u0Dzb0HvOhcOGIGdimp+W mi397frE654opeKNgKdUpKsE8qkRCUJq+SzLua6oghIU+Td69GVAqgIcGd+b6RCCV+P+ Sd4Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.222.195 with SMTP id qo3mr22964543wjc.51.1449884122480; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:35:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.52.130 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:35:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <566B68DC.1090602@bbiw.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <566B68DC.1090602@bbiw.net> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:35:22 -0500 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: Dave Crocker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 01:35:26 -0000 Hi Dave, On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/6/2015 4:59 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> I do think we've come a long way in the past few years and am sad to see no acknowledgement of that except mine in any of these posts. Sure, there's lots to be done > > There's lots to be done? > > That echoes your statement in: > > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/memo-decries-american-white-male-culture-at-internet-engineering-task-force > > But I haven't seen your documenting how problems with harassment or > bullying have improved, nor have you provided any substance to your > statement that there is more to do. Please read my post in context of this discussion (before your topic change) and my responses to the editor in regard to the actual questions asked as opposed to it being entirely in context to the ISE RFC you and Narelle wrote. My responses in this thread are on diversity and were on that topic for the article above as well. You'll see in the blog I wrote some of the efforts that have been launched since 2012 that help with diversity and inclusiveness. Yes, there is more to be done, just like in the rest of this industry on diversity and inclusiveness. This does not rest solely on me, but on all participants in the IETF. I am confused by your statements that put this entirely on me in this message. I make it clear in my blog post that efforts and programs can start by anyone with the initiative with one example of that (mentoring program). I would expect your tone and approach to be more open and encouraging in order to actually make progress with continuing to improve interactions in the IETF to promote these ideas rather than one that attacks others. What next steps can you offer? What did you learn from writing the RFC with Narelle? Are there improvements to the ombudsperson program that you might suggest? Are there other programs or efforts that you think would be helpful? > > I'm aware of 3 cases of invoking the Ombud, each of which were deemed by > the person contacting them as a complete failure. Note that the > community is provided no information about the performance of this > function. (Lest you comment about confidentiality I'll pre-respond by > noting that there are all sorts of ways to report such activity that > give a useful sense of what is going on without disclosing private > information.) I'm not briefed on these confidential matters, so I was unaware. But if you have suggestions to fix problems, please raise them with the ombudsmen, Jari, or if your suggestions are not private on a public list. > > We still see overt efforts to squelch contributions through intimidating > comments, with no apparent action by IETF management. I would suggest you call these out. I have in WGs I manage and it has stopped. Some are unaware of actions and pointing out ways with specific guidance on being more fair and inclusive is needed at times. Folks don't know about their own implicit bias that may exist. I am seeing improvement for my WGs, if there are other WGs that need help and you have specific suggestions to prevent this intimidation, please brief the chairs and AD. It may be more effective to do this in private as a first step unless something is overt and needs to be called out. I have seen many more comments called out in lists and in meetings to stop unfair treatment or bullying and I have seen them met with acknowledgment and have seen change result. The approach on this matters to have a positive effect. I hope that you can help to improve what you see and strive to offer constructive feedback to help create a more inclusive environment. > > So please explain, Kathleen, what your basis is for saying that things > are so much better than in the bad old days of 2012? I did say they were improved and cited specific additions of programs and increased awareness of the need for diversity and inclusiveness. For the most part, I do see this, but don't often see a message with a tone like yours appear often. Let's take a step back and work towards positive improvements. I look forward to hearing your additional suggestions for improvements to programs or new programs that you think could be useful to start. None of the programs that people have taken on through their initiatives will be perfect at the onset. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net -- Best regards, Kathleen From nobody Fri Dec 11 23:23:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13831A1A83 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:23:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YAIS6NZq0S2y for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBF21A1A7F for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBC7Mlo3028196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:22:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1449904974; x=1449991374; bh=2UkVW7yPnGXGmWMhyVA9XJ8Df+WGRmyaZycemUiCWWw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=0zlHW6JWg4HsXJC3b/si6cPd7BZHzgjdfRT/gzYorAfN0NXHCHVJ+DnwmZatyStOD w8TdRYi4fgLeQNJJAFfx98225tBJTqwrb8/jrmw0sdSm6TMDQMRXgcbMqjt1+UXw9m LlUH91nd26Aka0qqmvkwehBp4ohmO5JQdWCkOAeY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1449904974; x=1449991374; i=@resistor.net; bh=2UkVW7yPnGXGmWMhyVA9XJ8Df+WGRmyaZycemUiCWWw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=it7CAufd8U2DMg+JX4PFrbb3il2bGhxhTaczWH2Hqb/iMVFgR1phkydUlsQgJQR6n EG1XnOnv9ebmu0aTmRkeV3LuNVpuW5GNYSYRWQdMzSchlscSw0cI42cZNW4GBAn6cb t36xydw2YxR7zs0gPC6Zr984/Axkv3yfDTgJiM3g= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151211214439.0ecf5720@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 22:17:56 -0800 To: Alejandro Acosta , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 07:23:02 -0000 Hi Alejandro, At 15:24 11-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new >WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch >than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know >each other. > Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a >WG creation. Some persons in a working group already know each other. A person who does not know anyone in the working group might feel isolated. The outreach which has been done previously is amateurish. I don't know how it is nowadays. In the above, you are looking at what would make it easier for that unknown person to participate in a working group. Does that unknown person wish to be a RFC author of Working Group Chair? Regards, -sm From nobody Sat Dec 12 04:40:10 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 273E01A86F7 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 04:40:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 08LzU3j6LOTr for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 04:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AB51A86F2 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 04:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F742CCE5; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:40:05 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uiJxXeW6EI69; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:40:04 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796592CCAE; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:40:04 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_30B925DD-B044-46EF-9C78-1DDE0F4D62E1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:40:02 +0200 Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org, Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 12:40:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_30B925DD-B044-46EF-9C78-1DDE0F4D62E1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 SM, Thanks for looking at the numbers. As you know, I have been looking at some numbers as well (and have more in the works; stay tuned). There are several aspects of diversity, of course. Gender, geographical, type of organisation, financial resources, etc. You can also look at = diversity from the point of view leadership selections or the organisation as a = whole. I think a reasonable goal is to have a situation where barriers and (unintentional or not) biases are reduced or removed, so that people interested and able to participate in Internet technology development can do so on an equal basis. I=92m very happy that we seen a positive trend with regards to gender and leadership groups. Some reasons leading to this include awareness; highlighting and discussing the issue by you all. Thank you! I=92m very happy about the have the team I now have in the IESG. But as you point out, gender is indeed just one aspect. My personal opinion is that it is clear that we have ways to go in terms of broader diversity. Work remains! This is why I=92m particularly interested in type of organisation and geographical statistics. I want to explain my view on this topic, however, and I have two points to make: 1. The IETF is not a representational organisation, it is an organisation made up of people who have an interest, a need, and capability to deal with the topics. The IETF cannot create academia or industry, but we should be a place for academia and industry to be involved in, when they have an interest on Internet tech development. What we need to watch for is not a disagreement with the map so much as seeing some groups of participants not as actively engaged in the full scope of activities as others. Leadership groups and Asia is one current example. Much industry, research, and participants, but if there=92s one thing I=92d wish for my holiday season is news that we=92ll have more leadership selections from that region. Which I think is going to happen sooner or later. But again, that too is just one example. And I=92d also look for non-participation from areas where there is potential participation as well, but it is harder to measure. 2. These are long term processes, when new persons join an activity. It took me several years to write my first RFC, and about ten years to join the steering group. You see the progress of some areas in the statistics in this sense. (FWIW, some of the process overall probably needs some adjustment - we have more cases where people need to come in to do a task, rather than joining for a long-term participation.) But there is no magic bullet to suddenly change a situation. Someone mentioned the concept of a =93pipeline=94 - focusing on recruiting more new and more diverse people throughout the lifecycle of IETF work. Document authors, WG chairs, ADs, etc. I like that concept, and several ADs, for instance, are actively trying to make that happen in their recruitments. But it is of course broader than the IESG, we all should be on the look for document authors, reviewers, etc. with this in mind. Does this make sense to you? Does my formulation of the goal sound reasonable? Do you have suggestions? What concrete actions would you recommend? Jari --Apple-Mail=_30B925DD-B044-46EF-9C78-1DDE0F4D62E1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWbBWjAAoJEM80gCTQU46q7BQP/jhxxudL9nLllKng5C9HUfD0 DCK4+uvXu6Fj06RfdI0vEGFnu1sZu/efFjzWPgLozaCWpKZ3RPC8sKwKhdvQWKDo oH8Mey0U/Bfp2YiYiKK5A/xbyFBeoLgiurwkVPmeYbiHFO3Z5HZ/kPxfZqploDT3 zjwZS0OSYYdWUhhb6BkpB2YXo/iRRblg7dKUsUxWFMf08piYD830W39u8aL6Muih 7280m/aD4bqGcwKjpUdMcUAMW0SJCqqrmuhlLutqOwFcWWxido0k7cWZLzJyIqd/ ahGg5ie5yZVMT36vdGMkdc/iNB4xbf6pzMM5aG4QKEGlUJLtditDAvSs/frr5oYr wuoAooh8HXG/w6eBG/7vGacAxl8s+DZ2skWQhGOR4E3NCF2pJPQWgBmxCSUHJMbS Lvoe74W9iqaCm44L80uvsAH+L3T4z2R37ryZxmR3M4WujYx7eBC1rF0Cd/e0ClYN Uq/0Et97XsFeX4zzcRG2J+eJpSNLK3kOhnLgwAHaUfRDLwlAq96T+KtaaF7Bq+aX 6pFl6La75aMJi2UjZyLQRSSWwdRtgGFUqi5+45c8B1dSS3VR+s/iZvb5ndcgll+M h3P9ThZNigoKPuRJtqsVQ6G42gkdyQhqtHRtdu3KU2oF6vhUh8WOKMsHUiFFoaZq YZwGEsWZTObdHNeg9zmo =rYxD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_30B925DD-B044-46EF-9C78-1DDE0F4D62E1-- From nobody Sat Dec 12 07:54:14 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 DA07B1A8877 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:54:13 -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 hFdWWxpvWbUS for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (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 6F7E01A8872 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by qkdp187 with SMTP id p187so81115739qkd.1 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:54:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yKi++QMh/uSrMrOFGI3gnZrW2HVBiBBOJpAFMlCU5Tg=; b=ROxLSB7L+LzJdaya/gqG3zyTUyuQ1DReN+PNg3rQHehV+i/qnfl3WU7CVCGcid1+qC zpPFh90ZRKaP2qq3TbLGOLuTw+zu6mrGvY9caJV2/qe5ZezJOChJEiQVZxfv3IdaydYP Xmo9Fk3ooA0+nJRn7DGhk+x7FxorqWSXrN4tncC0/v1GaBGpPR3UcSxM0oJzLOpFEasu wUs/DuwBiT241JrzU1xI0zzvZ24Sy8IxAZBlTOc5h6ZsKrAwnHqKwpPScuRcYwLExtVT 0VFIp3UhpvAGtwt5ousGe82aNjbHbt6zGXGXfzB7SBKgH0r/LjpotgBMZCo7rJ86kAub xEYg== X-Received: by 10.13.250.196 with SMTP id k187mr13842426ywf.23.1449935651659; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:54:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.2.238] ([201.211.89.210]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 204sm16497602ywr.32.2015.12.12.07.54.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:54:11 -0800 (PST) To: SM , diversity@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151211214439.0ecf5720@resistor.net> From: Alejandro Acosta X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566C431F.8040102@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:24:07 -0430 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151211214439.0ecf5720@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 15:54:14 -0000 Hi SM, Nice to tell you hello. Inline: El 12/12/2015 a las 1:47 AM, SM escribió: > Hi Alejandro, > At 15:24 11-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new >> WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch >> than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know >> each other. >> Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a >> WG creation. > > Some persons in a working group already know each other. A person who > does not know anyone in the working group might feel isolated. The > outreach which has been done previously is amateurish. I don't know > how it is nowadays. Right.., maybe I'm talking in a utopia way. But I guess if there is a WG that will be created and we do some outreach before the formal creation then there will be more new people and the isolation feeling is not that big. The same case in the short term after the creation. I'm not aware this has being done before, if so, sorry to be redundant. Also, AFAIK new WG generally speaking have young people (again, AFAIK), that is -not limited to- our target. > > In the above, you are looking at what would make it easier for that > unknown person to participate in a working group. Does that unknown > person wish to be a RFC author of Working Group Chair? That's beyond what I had in mine. I'm just talking about general participation, I mean, follow the mailing list, give some feedback after the publication of a document. Then, WG Chair, RFCs authoring should come automatically after the people feed engage with IETF. Thanks, Alejandro, > > Regards, > -sm From nobody Sat Dec 12 09:45:00 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 382FF1A8986 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:44:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t831wQwS1vH5 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FEE1A8984 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBCHillk003623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:44:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1449942293; x=1450028693; bh=lBm4zL6xGo4oIA6Iixgnz1D3Hp0RtDSMXuAxQftZ++A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ixI7dvfwO8Nf/EvrOnms907w7gBJvsW735R8nn/hZHED1zNnK7AazJGL9GwcqDboh 5JpZeV6ihBI9ETMIMvllqh+pIWjqsz4tri4gDhs00reen0JAM4bUWxBpcFR2NlYXkY mT4AN0BiTvaWb9LPDAP8+xQ+/OYQIvP4yvjWsuGU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1449942293; x=1450028693; i=@resistor.net; bh=lBm4zL6xGo4oIA6Iixgnz1D3Hp0RtDSMXuAxQftZ++A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=2eddRy8qvmk3M13dnCNz28reMngO4XXPcC4+2Idknd+vamo8jo2pago6nYitqUs2l g56nDXPA5LjHlePaU7RcbI9BZ/qhVNMsVZvC96IIzH4bx6299jogN9Xi/5ZkNfCrNO XUz16nR5vY0iGYyo8GvNKsTTMK62Q4IcaKccnzNA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151212082232.0d8fe4b0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:44:18 -0800 To: Alejandro Acosta , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <566C431F.8040102@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151211214439.0ecf5720@resistor.net> <566C431F.8040102@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 17:44:59 -0000 Hi Alejandro, It's nice to hear from you. :-) At 07:54 12-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >Right.., maybe I'm talking in a utopia way. But I guess if there is a WG >that will be created and we do some outreach before the formal creation >then there will be more new people and the isolation feeling is not that >big. The same case in the short term after the creation. I'm not aware >this has being done before, if so, sorry to be redundant. Also, AFAIK >new WG generally speaking have young people (again, AFAIK), that is -not >limited to- our target. I see what you mean; if there are more new people when the Working Group work begins the new person won't feel isolated. I don't think that what you are proposing is a utopian way. If something has been done before and it did not work, that does not mean that it will not work if you try it. I would encourage you to try it if you have the opportunity to do so. >That's beyond what I had in mine. I'm just talking about general >participation, I mean, follow the mailing list, give some feedback after >the publication of a document. Then, WG Chair, RFCs authoring should >come automatically after the people feed engage with IETF. It's difficult to get a person to participate as the person might not see the use of doing that. I asked about RFC authoring and WG chairing as it is then easier for the person to determine whether it is worth his/her effort or not. Regards, -sm From nobody Sat Dec 12 13:40:07 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 BD9561A9079 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:40:05 -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 QuzUJOV4gZV6 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (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 E4DD91A9078 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgz52 with SMTP id 52so36911274qgz.1 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:40:03 -0800 (PST) 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=pebmXaSpheOB8BeCMlazAohBJrEGCQ38GdU1/mRy30g=; b=agpjfBwarFUxblsYjceH+hw314SoAB1BnSd44EyV/fdfVp5HaqCoqAFsXN4pTklDA6 cHjQwgbbSAovmpDVD3dC0t1gmj3RkFQxGen2qbn6AXD2gpf3TFKKOKv56qkbkGSzimZy TgbMOsKQGdn3Y233KMI8w+8Vzj1dUhWEIYblCHBdxgwFLcorh39y2Ft+R7+MskLkdz4D W7D9IdaWKgS900XdmMWEtD585V1F1aoUtEztnh+VoJkRSpuJqKbsz9+5kgWV5twdB5Bu pxIlbUnz19JRZlfaMOPeY9XlDZ1xvrJNdufHifUy6lZGZe2E9w+HbH+l/XFPnpQ5NFmX fbUQ== X-Received: by 10.140.20.144 with SMTP id 16mr33769584qgj.45.1449956403166; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.1.204] ([65.200.157.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c3sm3021499qge.12.2015.12.12.13.40.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:40:01 -0800 (PST) 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 (12H143) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151212082232.0d8fe4b0@resistor.net> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:40:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A029816-27E1-466E-8D89-1ED0AA3084C4@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151211214439.0ecf5720@resistor.net> <566C431F.8040102@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151212082232.0d8fe4b0@resistor.net> To: SM Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Alejandro Acosta Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 12 Dec 2015 21:40:05 -0000 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 12, 2015, at 12:44 PM, SM wrote: >=20 > Hi Alejandro, >=20 > It's nice to hear from you. :-) >=20 > At 07:54 12-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> Right.., maybe I'm talking in a utopia way. But I guess if there is a WG >> that will be created and we do some outreach before the formal creation >> then there will be more new people and the isolation feeling is not that >> big. The same case in the short term after the creation. I'm not aware >> this has being done before, if so, sorry to be redundant. Also, AFAIK >> new WG generally speaking have young people (again, AFAIK), that is -not >> limited to- our target. >=20 > I see what you mean; if there are more new people when the Working Group w= ork begins the new person won't feel isolated. I don't think that what you a= re proposing is a utopian way. If something has been done before and it did= not work, that does not mean that it will not work if you try it. I would e= ncourage you to try it if you have the opportunity to do so. >=20 >> That's beyond what I had in mine. I'm just talking about general >> participation, I mean, follow the mailing list, give some feedback after >> the publication of a document. Then, WG Chair, RFCs authoring should >> come automatically after the people feed engage with IETF. >=20 > It's difficult to get a person to participate as the person might not see t= he use of doing that. I asked about RFC authoring and WG chairing as it is t= hen easier for the person to determine whether it is worth his/her effort or= not. Another in-between step is to be a WG secretary. It does help prep to be a c= hair. Either asking or having a chair or AD identity candidates is helpful a= s not all realize this is an option since there are very few of them. Best regards, Kathleen=20 >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity From nobody Sun Dec 13 21:50:22 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 7FEAD1ACD5C for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:50:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.502 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bqxvla-HgxIc for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D521ACD5B for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBE5nxg3016559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:50:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450072208; x=1450158608; bh=zdyTbJMgLsN2/Zu/AxXIOFh5BlNB5xlVxexdYcGzwI0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rEkC9tzN53+EjYdXJg9OmcNVJO/o5pyg8tmmKupcIQNu+ylMVrJTiJyoVL7jiWDve BsFWMVHs9bPqgCoYg5hBA0nQ6u5Neo+v46xBFnjKU5BwPqdrNKmKw/PwoimGzapo6J 6na7Qnro3KuLbdC+96ADoAEzfX7FGddr5t1THHkY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450072208; x=1450158608; i=@resistor.net; bh=zdyTbJMgLsN2/Zu/AxXIOFh5BlNB5xlVxexdYcGzwI0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2nshYFZN0F0YN57tN6jg2qvmGXBnLLsB7tRNdp3zg3L/LfKjZ93HBbygDtdYznFbg B/R0GF//OcDoFdPSAo1y3GOwkBUsSc/1VGvA1OpN5JaPO4WVuvs0UELGjpeP1ent0M UqS5dA2QqstjSRHCroAMGRBNUMKeXyhWhpv4dWQ4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:50:52 -0800 To: Jari Arkko , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 05:50:21 -0000 Hi Jari, At 04:40 12-12-2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >Thanks for looking at the numbers. As you know, I have been looking >at some numbers as well (and have more in the works; stay tuned). Yes. >There are several aspects of diversity, of course. Gender, geographical, >type of organisation, financial resources, etc. You can also look at diversity >from the point of view leadership selections or the organisation as a whole. Yes. >I think a reasonable goal is to have a situation where barriers and >(unintentional or not) biases are reduced or removed, so that >people interested and able to participate in Internet technology >development can do so on an equal basis. There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. >I'm very happy that we seen a positive trend with regards to gender >and leadership groups. Some reasons leading to this include awareness; >highlighting and discussing the issue by you all. Thank you! I'm very >happy about the have the team I now have in the IESG. Ok. >But as you point out, gender is indeed just one aspect. My personal >opinion is that it is clear that we have ways to go in terms of >broader diversity. Work remains! This is why I'm particularly >interested in type of organisation and geographical statistics. >I want to explain my view on this topic, however, and I have >two points to make: > >1. The IETF is not a representational organisation, it is an >organisation made up of people who have an interest, a >need, and capability to deal with the topics. The IETF >cannot create academia or industry, but we should >be a place for academia and industry to be involved >in, when they have an interest on Internet tech development. >What we need to watch for is not a disagreement with the >map so much as seeing some groups of participants not as >actively engaged in the full scope of activities as others. > >Leadership groups and Asia is one current example. Much >industry, research, and participants, but if there's one thing >I'd wish for my holiday season is news that we'll have >more leadership selections from that region. Which I >think is going to happen sooner or later. But again, >that too is just one example. And I'd also look for >non-participation from areas where there is >potential participation as well, but it is harder >to measure. I am okay with what you wrote about interest, a need, and the capacity to deal with the topics. The message from the marketing department is different though. >2. These are long term processes, when new persons >join an activity. It took me several years to write my >first RFC, and about ten years to join the steering >group. You see the progress of some areas in the >statistics in this sense. (FWIW, some of the process >overall probably needs some adjustment - we have >more cases where people need to come in to do >a task, rather than joining for a long-term participation.) >But there is no magic bullet to suddenly change a >situation. Someone mentioned the concept of a >"pipeline" - focusing on recruiting more new and >more diverse people throughout the lifecycle of >IETF work. Document authors, WG chairs, ADs, >etc. I like that concept, and several ADs, for >instance, are actively trying to make that >happen in their recruitments. But it is of >course broader than the IESG, we all should >be on the look for document authors, reviewers, >etc. with this in mind. I am going to not agree on this one. :-) I didn't see the above argument being made in discussions about gender issues. Why is the regions issue being intertwined with the new participant issue? The concept of "pipeline" sounds interesting. Here's one way to look at the above; the random participant will have to wait ten years before the person might be eligible for the IESG. Most people would probably turn away on reading that as it is a long-term commitment. >Does this make sense to you? Does my formulation >of the goal sound reasonable? Do you have suggestions? >What concrete actions would you recommend? I'd say that your formulation is well-formulated. :-) The goal is reasonable if it is not tied to long time processes. Here's an EEO report: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/infographics/intel-eeo-report-2014-infographic.pdf As the IETF seems keen about best practices, it could consider similar reporting for what is usually described as "leadership positions". I am not comfortable classifying a person. However, it is not for me to argue against that if that is the way of doing things in the United States. I'll suggest a parallel track in Gen-ART for reviewers who do not reside in countries where English is the main language. The reviews would go to the IETF discussion list. In a message on this thread, Dave Crocker commented as follows: "Note that the community is provided no information about the performance of this [ombudsperson] function". I suggest publishing information about the complaints which were reported. The names of all parties would be removed from the report as the purpose is to create awareness about the problems instead of blaming people. Regards, -sm From nobody Mon Dec 14 04:11:36 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 86A571ACDC8 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:11:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 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, 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 9O2xXttHRan1 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:11:32 -0800 (PST) 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 5C9931ACDAB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:11:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by qget30 with SMTP id t30so9279583qge.3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:11:30 -0800 (PST) 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=BFh2W8P6FRSn/+TnLHdYPHeaYpp7StrL5WRMGWYUMqI=; b=YwAI9fJsFRwFxD3+OoJL2s7HXb30P8jGX4vUc+TWohcakSk0VfqXFe34nhkcLRyWRE Qb1KHmziN8RQ5ePmAnjgR5J6B1BQppw0GJx8vcQwDYpf4KPWt3YcAin44OM7mXvCCchw ZK38RcyjoeNywMjqUT1A0chwo/XJLuR7Ox3yyuR2drOxMtRBRPJ6CJuXAWkasnJ3LwsQ xFmwfL3tNmX5m6IblJdKmhuQL/ZqBfxxyle9ybmicHGyuM03go/zj+sLRvzkeWUOZVKC 8kDoRptzvZPSpbgtyrtOEpYZ/bRyx4+QWi+zg5wVGQYtnmGoPyMtLOD2Ta+UkaGMfCbQ T+Nw== X-Received: by 10.140.25.145 with SMTP id 17mr43498185qgt.96.1450095090501; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.1.204] ([65.200.157.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q12sm13793385qki.15.2015.12.14.04.11.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:11:29 -0800 (PST) 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 (12H143) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:11:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> To: SM Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Jari Arkko Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 12:11:35 -0000 Hi, SM. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 13, 2015, at 7:50 PM, SM wrote: >=20 > Hi Jari, > At 04:40 12-12-2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >> Thanks for looking at the numbers. As you know, I have been looking >> at some numbers as well (and have more in the works; stay tuned). >=20 > Yes. >=20 >> There are several aspects of diversity, of course. Gender, geographical, >> type of organisation, financial resources, etc. You can also look at dive= rsity >> from the point of view leadership selections or the organisation as a who= le. >=20 > Yes. >=20 >> I think a reasonable goal is to have a situation where barriers and >> (unintentional or not) biases are reduced or removed, so that >> people interested and able to participate in Internet technology >> development can do so on an equal basis. >=20 > There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the economic a= bility of a participant to attend meetings. Does that have an effect the IE= SG selection? I don't know. >=20 >> I'm very happy that we seen a positive trend with regards to gender >> and leadership groups. Some reasons leading to this include awareness; >> highlighting and discussing the issue by you all. Thank you! I'm very >> happy about the have the team I now have in the IESG. >=20 > Ok. >=20 >> But as you point out, gender is indeed just one aspect. My personal >> opinion is that it is clear that we have ways to go in terms of >> broader diversity. Work remains! This is why I'm particularly >> interested in type of organisation and geographical statistics. >> I want to explain my view on this topic, however, and I have >> two points to make: >>=20 >> 1. The IETF is not a representational organisation, it is an >> organisation made up of people who have an interest, a >> need, and capability to deal with the topics. The IETF >> cannot create academia or industry, but we should >> be a place for academia and industry to be involved >> in, when they have an interest on Internet tech development. >> What we need to watch for is not a disagreement with the >> map so much as seeing some groups of participants not as >> actively engaged in the full scope of activities as others. >>=20 >> Leadership groups and Asia is one current example. Much >> industry, research, and participants, but if there's one thing >> I'd wish for my holiday season is news that we'll have >> more leadership selections from that region. Which I >> think is going to happen sooner or later. But again, >> that too is just one example. And I'd also look for >> non-participation from areas where there is >> potential participation as well, but it is harder >> to measure. >=20 > I am okay with what you wrote about interest, a need, and the capacity to d= eal with the topics. The message from the marketing department is different= though. >=20 >> 2. These are long term processes, when new persons >> join an activity. It took me several years to write my >> first RFC, and about ten years to join the steering >> group. You see the progress of some areas in the >> statistics in this sense. (FWIW, some of the process >> overall probably needs some adjustment - we have >> more cases where people need to come in to do >> a task, rather than joining for a long-term participation.) >> But there is no magic bullet to suddenly change a >> situation. Someone mentioned the concept of a >> "pipeline" - focusing on recruiting more new and >> more diverse people throughout the lifecycle of >> IETF work. Document authors, WG chairs, ADs, >> etc. I like that concept, and several ADs, for >> instance, are actively trying to make that >> happen in their recruitments. But it is of >> course broader than the IESG, we all should >> be on the look for document authors, reviewers, >> etc. with this in mind. >=20 > I am going to not agree on this one. :-) I didn't see the above argument b= eing made in discussions about gender issues. Why is the regions issue bein= g intertwined with the new participant issue? >=20 > The concept of "pipeline" sounds interesting. Here's one way to look at t= he above; the random participant will have to wait ten years before the pers= on might be eligible for the IESG. Most people would probably turn away on r= eading that as it is a long-term commitment. >=20 >> Does this make sense to you? Does my formulation >> of the goal sound reasonable? Do you have suggestions? >> What concrete actions would you recommend? >=20 > I'd say that your formulation is well-formulated. :-) The goal is reasona= ble if it is not tied to long time processes. >=20 > Here's an EEO report: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/do= cuments/infographics/intel-eeo-report-2014-infographic.pdf As the IETF seems= keen about best practices, it could consider similar reporting for what is u= sually described as "leadership positions". I am not comfortable classifyin= g a person. However, it is not for me to argue against that if that is the w= ay of doing things in the United States. >=20 > I'll suggest a parallel track in Gen-ART for reviewers who do not reside i= n countries where English is the main language. The reviews would go to the= IETF discussion list. >=20 > In a message on this thread, Dave Crocker commented as follows: "Note tha= t the community is provided no information about the performance of this [om= budsperson] function". I suggest publishing information about the complaint= s which were reported. The names of all parties would be removed from the r= eport as the purpose is to create awareness about the problems instead of bl= aming people. I don't think his would be appropriate and think many would abstain from rep= orting anything to an ombudsman if it were going to be publicly reported, ev= en sanitized. It is to easy for some to reconstruct the full scenario, elim= inating the privacy aspect all parties should be able to assume in such a pr= ocess. I am surprised Dave knows about 3 instances. That must be from involved ind= ividuals themselves. When he assumed I would be aware since I'm on the IESG= , that is simply not the case as the IESG isn't even informed as that would b= reak the expected confidentiality. Regards, Kathleen=20 >=20 > Regards, > -sm =20 From nobody Mon Dec 14 04:24:20 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 BF3501ACDD4 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:18 -0800 (PST) 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 NvY2kjVwujrm for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:17 -0800 (PST) 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 860B01A21BE for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.99] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBECOFpZ028571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:15 -0800 References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> To: Kathleen Moriarty , SM From: Dave Crocker X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking Message-ID: <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:45 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.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 [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:16 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Jari Arkko Subject: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:24:18 -0000 On 12/14/2015 4:11 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > I don't think his would be appropriate and think many would abstain from reporting anything to an ombudsman if it were going to be publicly reported, even sanitized. It is to easy for some to reconstruct the full scenario, eliminating the privacy aspect all parties should be able to assume in such a process. > > When he assumed I would be aware since I'm on the IESG, that is simply not the case as the IESG isn't even informed as that would break the expected confidentiality. Kathleen, I said nothing that suggested any such assumption. You, however, are making assumptions about the ability to report Ombud behavior and you are ignoring the rather serious problem caused by it's poor track record. The two RFCs concern abuse and harassment and your blog post, your news article quotations, and your postings here all talk about attendance. In other words, you have sought to move attention away from behaviors to demographics. In that effort, you have rather casually dismissed concerns about behaviors. That matches how IETF management responds to problematic behavior. Demographics is a much more pleasant topic than abuse. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Dec 14 04:42:34 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 01E2B1ACE07 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:42:34 -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 ArJ-vwaUVJpz for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (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 54F1E1ACE0A for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgev16 with SMTP id v16so26788553qge.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:42:31 -0800 (PST) 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=nE95bH5Rbdi3iCCQ0JR4cRjyJ24KxN/9GXGqj856bnQ=; b=NmbCyw1IVa5yMTyZPhtzju6QW5rKxVIK4yDHrWnZxi5/pJCybpwOlwj3auB4F2rpNx as99T52sGUKjG2mKLuGVsTQJSPCP2TngasOZegK5RzJimE7gGxHveL5JHca2r1/q1wyO 610STcWdxB9eokVxkbaPTatZ1sA4uNy0Twys5zzZoW6B50Hy+mKbl6hEN80xRVPblH3j BpmM2jOEV6GdkTPYfbfqETsekOn2PoEjQrJ4rzOVQU4cwqO7pCAChprlUgmNJobHFnDz +IrLt9GlqYmcGpV/xUbuNZR2Nra/YHYgMLDWgHPhNoAYhWvX88SZm6kNs25hrFiy/uWM 4Vvg== X-Received: by 10.140.171.9 with SMTP id r9mr36125864qhr.93.1450096951585; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:42:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.1.204] ([65.200.157.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z190sm13801335qka.0.2015.12.14.04.42.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:42:29 -0800 (PST) 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 (12H143) In-Reply-To: <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:42:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7524231B-ED00-4620-9D29-564555E1AB5D@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Archived-At: Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) 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, 14 Dec 2015 12:42:34 -0000 Hi Dave, Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 >> On 12/14/2015 4:11 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> I don't think his would be appropriate and think many would abstain from r= eporting anything to an ombudsman if it were going to be publicly reported, e= ven sanitized. It is to easy for some to reconstruct the full scenario, eli= minating the privacy aspect all parties should be able to assume in such a p= rocess. >>=20 >> When he assumed I would be aware since I'm on the IESG, that is simply no= t the case as the IESG isn't even informed as that would break the expected c= onfidentiality. >=20 >=20 > Kathleen, >=20 > I said nothing that suggested any such assumption. You mentioned 3 times you were aware of the ombudsman not working well. I'm= not briefed on these things. >=20 > You, however, are making assumptions about the ability to report Ombud > behavior and you are ignoring the rather serious problem caused by it's > poor track record. I don't have access to this record. >=20 > The two RFCs concern abuse and harassment and your blog post, your news > article quotations, and your postings here all talk about attendance. I was asked specific questions about diversity as the former co-chair of the= diversity design team and answered those questions appropriately. You are m= aking assumptions that my responses should be on your draft, rather than a s= ummary of efforts I was a part of and helped chair. A report was long overd= ue. Most on this list are also concerned with diversity and how to improve i= t. If you have suggestions from your work that are constructive and helpful, th= at could be a very good thing to move the needle forward. >=20 > In other words, you have sought to move attention away from behaviors to > demographics. No, I responded to questions asked and wrote a blog from my own work. =20 >=20 > In that effort, you have rather casually dismissed concerns about > behaviors. That's not true, although I do think they are better and noted that in what I= wrote in that it's much easier to call out bad behaviors and have everyone m= ove on from it. I also noted in response to you examples from my own effort= s and that my WGs generally have good conduct. >=20 > That matches how IETF management responds to problematic behavior. I see this as a generalization that's unnecessary. I'm not sure why you are= reading my responses the way you are, that they should only be in context t= o your work. >=20 > Demographics is a much more pleasant topic than abuse. It's somewhat related to create an inclusive environment. If you could cont= ribute lessons learned and next steps for improvement rather than just stayi= ng on the problem side, perhaps we could make even more progress.=20 Thank you, Kathleen=20 >=20 > d/ > --=20 > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From nobody Mon Dec 14 05:17:45 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 32C2E1ACDE3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:17:44 -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 UruAjLJ05oAW for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921411A6EDC for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:17:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E072CE21; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:17:40 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yK4UUfAKTfsj; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:17:40 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633C72CCBF; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:17:40 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_71C3987A-CCBC-4C23-AE65-1AAF49BD552D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:17:38 +0200 Message-Id: <4EB2BD80-A959-4A3A-93E0-740C9BE200FF@piuha.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: SM , Kathleen Moriarty , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) 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, 14 Dec 2015 13:17:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_71C3987A-CCBC-4C23-AE65-1AAF49BD552D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Dave, obviously both are important. With regards to providing a report from ombudsteam activities, I have = personally no objection to that. But I=92ll observe two things. First, the numbers = are very small, so conclusions will be difficult. Even I have limited access to the = information, but it is the usual mix of a learning experience on our side and varying = degrees of ability to help in a particular situation. Second, the = RFC-to-be-draft-farrresnickel says: Participants in an investigation (Reporters, Subjects, Respondents, and anyone interviewed by the Ombudsteam during an investigation) are requested to keep the details of the events and investigation confidential. It is likely that members of the community will want to know more when they have become aware of some details of a case of harassment. The community is asked to show restraint and to trust the Ombudsteam. This process is designed to provide remedies not punishment as described in Section 5.2 and public discussion of the events or remedies does not form part of this process. My plan is to follow what the RFC says. Also, the current ombudsperson setup has been temporary, and I=92m in = the process of setting up the team and the associated training, operating practices, etc. Jari --Apple-Mail=_71C3987A-CCBC-4C23-AE65-1AAF49BD552D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWbsFzAAoJEM80gCTQU46qj0oP/RZEyvyEvPdWwhgGC4ll7zOp sLzgGTgMSyYghwzdHNIy+a7dkDC8+/2/1M7OPfcDn7GYo/4D8hjoyaln/TLT44n9 v1pNQDATjuMjuJU3Yf+2fYLo3BaPsaRM/cbVFT163qYWyOEXpGk/10/FK/ECwuKz 8RKa8bEGC71fEUEjqxC7Rq3LzuaZ6XNcPT0MwzR6R3YLeEaEyHn5fIoCfd5vkW7v aboieHSxMAd3yg7B560jxBJJtaRjEi5gS68ayCyojfw1E0Gfoe58JZOvgbo3xH+p qjTP9nz+mVT4iru/Z7PbUWjAOxbPHZSmNoaK2Y8mdMwhpy6R00PPrCyzsp+mzJrE aMlR0GeUN4p/AZHCjbSoftHBgEa2wSuunWPIBLJ3PDBMQ6dISvx5vGqyHr0v24bT J5X5NCrT+xFm8wufep54P6QknJKES7qMVawnB83Mj27NXg6pDDD3RsKmV5+YdF7S EAPH7OUOO2XPyVE6cUW6rlLZFsxWeAHVvHs6c0fRshw8yowImvdmj7fTeZnPlfkW 5dSvSQZmyMO3JKAgSMK7I99Of13h1nxO5nt8XD2E1Hqbbal6ZMXfFbukXEfqtyGR U7lQKXCURbd8a2z2qeDmNgpGM+bBahT+kYNL8vJf0uQNA+/FT5ZLQjZ0g5uTdCJs 2khVPQd0IZeJMnK+ugP+ =IdRo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_71C3987A-CCBC-4C23-AE65-1AAF49BD552D-- From nobody Mon Dec 14 06:10:40 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 946A91A1A58 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:10:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 Ft-SoXGYCn41 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364091A1A39 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 06:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7822C2CE21; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:10:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HcqMlTBMozMF; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:10:34 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6662CCBF; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:10:34 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D0BBA2B6-2DBB-46DD-ACC8-2C1E1EA90DEB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:10:33 +0200 Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> To: SM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 14:10:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D0BBA2B6-2DBB-46DD-ACC8-2C1E1EA90DEB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the = economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that have an = effect the IESG selection? I don't know. Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles availability to both participate in general and being a leadership member. Probably toughest of the issues, and one that I have very little tools to deal with, at least not without larger funding. I do want to note one thing, however, which is that the IETF also works not as an independent world of its own, but in connection with industry and academia. Most people who do IETF work have convinced their funding agencies that the work they do is worthwhile from the point of view of those organisations. You could debate whether that=92s reasonable, but one feature that it has is that work we do has have some real-world relationship, and that=92s not necessarily a bad thing :-) But it can also be tough for, say, someone from a place where there is no academic funding on networking research or at least not some that could be combined with participation in the IETF. I=92m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that are specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don=92t know how to replicate that more globally. Ideas? >> 2. These are long term processes, when new persons >> join an activity. It took me several years to write my >> first RFC, and about ten years to join the steering >> group. You see the progress of some areas in the >> statistics in this sense. (FWIW, some of the process >> overall probably needs some adjustment - we have >> more cases where people need to come in to do >> a task, rather than joining for a long-term participation.) >> But there is no magic bullet to suddenly change a >> situation. Someone mentioned the concept of a >> "pipeline" - focusing on recruiting more new and >> more diverse people throughout the lifecycle of >> IETF work. Document authors, WG chairs, ADs, >> etc. I like that concept, and several ADs, for >> instance, are actively trying to make that >> happen in their recruitments. But it is of >> course broader than the IESG, we all should >> be on the look for document authors, reviewers, >> etc. with this in mind. >=20 > I am going to not agree on this one. :-) I didn't see the above = argument being made in discussions about gender issues. Why is the = regions issue being intertwined with the new participant issue? A fair point. They really are separate (while both real). Everyone = should have a fair shot at doing the same kinds of things at the IETF, on a given = expertise & availabiity & etc level. There=92s a separate issue of bringing in new participations. And a yet = separate issue of how someone progresses to do more things. And on that note: > The concept of "pipeline" sounds interesting. Here's one way to look = at the above; the random participant will have to wait ten years before = the person might be eligible for the IESG. Most people would probably = turn away on reading that as it is a long-term commitment. You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should = not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that = happens, I=92d like to see a situation where people are who experts in Internet = technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get going, at any level = they desire and are suitable for. But again, I don=92t have many ideas on how to change this, and I=92m = open to suggestions=85 > Here's an EEO report: = http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/infographics/i= ntel-eeo-report-2014-infographic.pdf As the IETF seems keen about best = practices, it could consider similar reporting for what is usually = described as "leadership positions". I am not comfortable classifying a = person. However, it is not for me to argue against that if that is the = way of doing things in the United States. Thanks for the link. I=92ll read it later. > I'll suggest a parallel track in Gen-ART for reviewers who do not = reside in countries where English is the main language. The reviews = would go to the IETF discussion list. The current Gen-ART reviewers have at least one third, maybe more = non-native English speakers. I=92d say if you have ideas about new = Gen-ART members, let me know and we=92ll add them to the team! This team = is not defined by language, it is about the willingness to use their = expertise to make good reviews. But even more diversity in the good = reviewers would be welcome. Jari --Apple-Mail=_D0BBA2B6-2DBB-46DD-ACC8-2C1E1EA90DEB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWbs3ZAAoJEM80gCTQU46qR1wP/3SWpDKrVBR8PyAGdROcLsgM ThkesSe8/S0j75A7tnYW4v+mMvgxw2CWiAxRombQEMCo0oPtDOukwLzEAXDQD3kS LjRcwPjvaivyh17T4EZLJDM0wDEpyamYcaKhO8r6UpjMbr8SPPR/dkBvdXnA6ImC a004I5l55VMN9uthTz+4Z4zh1WKjAaf4b8Czx+atnyR+o6I7NmfCBm9RY6OHJcNN oIoC7zZ5tjGu3qp99lNtQEhYlzLbgpqQdmgRHLdQAZY3Fftow1MaZxVOYFf//y5j nbU1bSqRWKl1oFHrkXDTdOpAoY0ksESsWn/+RAihI99SoMjvKEXP7WA3CXR2kkUs Cjm4Z+1e3qkigdKyvc/DqDcwDZ7NVNQNV7bOawcV9gRqrH9zIF4YW11QJyVmKdXC hnQWVnjxmwUIVeOw9Na7elV49+Imrn9SY/alJKcNyO3Jijxfmk+W6hqhZ35ij+kx IlUiHxLiDW8Le0zzdJVaSGbXSrqASlIYfMN8ukpnCxBKW9tef5iSBJSIDAR8hiJA ZcBOZN9D4qhY4PdU7e2TeID3RYUiesYHV2+E5xBgBwSkSvbNmTlJLJpvNB7Wh+QS jgOhTJPQ+mPazboKi4HzVJOwUWYjKCpzYrYy0iuAcw9ZL0o8gPI8sY1IUfpLivrf litlE2Yp4Ne/mcsnPlaq =fhGm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D0BBA2B6-2DBB-46DD-ACC8-2C1E1EA90DEB-- From nobody Mon Dec 14 09:28:33 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 4D22C1ACE7A for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZXO8oPxoZsf for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86DA1ACE71 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBEHS9wE013324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450114100; x=1450200500; bh=v+AcUk4kcPX/y02yo9/5+WMYDgAbvvh8DYHsNCxw7oU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tXTYPyBtI1kJlFgF4pX8evrhxeb0tW08SPJfUe7VR0IyntNnIDSgpAuS87kys1ztp 6l4uWt1mo7y+ktqy0trsvwh8CXMey0CliljOoVGef3kqF1zXLPEV2YUcvrvoVTS4Xk 8D9Gp/v9Vc1ZG+QR9+1sQXosLz0kUffgcKv5x4UQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450114100; x=1450200500; i=@resistor.net; bh=v+AcUk4kcPX/y02yo9/5+WMYDgAbvvh8DYHsNCxw7oU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=aKopdnXR0zmLR7lARe8svHEbtnvOHqEWsHeq4twEuZmoUlhfg/pC0m8QlOaw42NV5 OoU0KibXUPLObxyFC9gA5mv7GVjNhuK3gdZBwwW9cyzjyBZ0wozQzEPsLxA5UdlfbY NRsQvQ8hgPbCEplLKpoUXOPHmz8MLOMbpUvrHVTw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214071652.0f36dfe0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:57:15 -0800 To: Kathleen Moriarty From: SM In-Reply-To: <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org, Jari Arkko Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 17:28:32 -0000 Hi Kathleen, At 04:11 14-12-2015, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >I don't think his would be appropriate and think many would abstain >from reporting anything to an ombudsman if it were going to be >publicly reported, even sanitized. It is to easy for some to >reconstruct the full scenario, eliminating the privacy aspect all >parties should be able to assume in such a process. > >I am surprised Dave knows about 3 instances. That must be from >involved individuals themselves. When he assumed I would be aware >since I'm on the IESG, that is simply not the case as the IESG isn't >even informed as that would break the expected confidentiality. There is an interesting point in the last sentence of the second paragraph (see above). A participant who is not very familiar with the IETF might assume that the IESG would be aware of the identity of the person filing a complaint. What happens is that the person will not file a complaint. I'll comment on the first paragraph. The objective is to allow the two opposite parties to be anonymous while maintaining a degree of transparency. The amount of complaints shows whether people have confidence in the system or not. It also encourages other persons to step forward as they can see whether the system is reliable or not. If the scenario allows you to identify the two parties it means the report was not anonymized properly. Regards, -sm From nobody Mon Dec 14 09:28:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F9D1ACE7F for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-KIvK_Z4QdZ for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332421ACE7B for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBEHS9wG013324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:28:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450114107; x=1450200507; bh=xHRC6qCxigAnB9J3GOJP3wjssR7TSK9Oj5QMlyIRr4k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=omTn8/LWCe5KrZgpvc2Nk+dByaYBZ8bcc4OpGnXKxDl+SV+NsaIz2+ITrzm5U5wZk 3f+sQi1wNgt6GHEAKd2dijAY7cf2Fk4GwzZS560wfLfE4nGbP0fI0MEiWWZmInEbOE SAd0APVaV87ZWbGKJKJaoJqQteJgXnQgEktLkqIM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450114107; x=1450200507; i=@resistor.net; bh=xHRC6qCxigAnB9J3GOJP3wjssR7TSK9Oj5QMlyIRr4k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3KUweyi9gPh6+OYPWcZj4DZYJ/uqLogUjXspQgRIqxOgCSZgQz1rBfK7AJZ09jyD4 Cj+RDSvb/qnX8Cnt8Xkf3IybwwH64DsDfMOa5mrVoZBlB10L6v0RxkckvvnPkg90st QqLtWKr9N8FrqZzRydT4l0bv99GAUXX+FwIzvuUU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214085901.0f2c8468@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:27:55 -0800 To: Kathleen Moriarty , dcrocker@bbiw.net, diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <7524231B-ED00-4620-9D29-564555E1AB5D@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> <7524231B-ED00-4620-9D29-564555E1AB5D@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: Jari Arkko Subject: Re: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) 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, 14 Dec 2015 17:28:47 -0000 Hi Kathleen, Dave, If I understood correctly, Kathleen is arguing about not staying on the problem side while Dave is arguing that it is easier pleasant to discuss about demographics instead of discussing about abuse. At 05:17 14-12-2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >of ability to help in a particular situation. Second, the >RFC-to-be-draft-farrresnickel >says: [snip] > It is likely that members of the community will want to know more > when they have become aware of some details of a case of harassment. > The community is asked to show restraint and to trust the Ombudsteam. In my opinion, the discussion between Kathleen and Dave highlights the difficulties of trust. My question is as follows: Why should I trust either of you if you are part of the Ombudsteam? Regards, -sm From nobody Mon Dec 14 09:41:11 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 B0A4D1AC3E1 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:41:09 -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 0cSlEEwXwAfq for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 3BD211ACE96 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:40:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p66so55216528wmp.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:40:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CSutPnlFdntwGOjFihBncqQ7OF4rNMo+KhqwzXSXXjM=; b=hRFVUdXjyD7LZIsbpA7UfJsXDb2Pxu/Uz2HXzDnOlF1tUsYX4rv6UZDnu3ycqkuZBQ ZhXHxG0UJOWsXLMV+RmHE/8s0kh3ZpVAcOjtynJidIBxWBJ7dpZsbe5wiWZFMC1maICT v1V/gVvqFgIBgLKbyyuaZakfuGxNlNjFMogMSxJbhT43uXQCCEMyO9o/u5q9mRyM74yH sv4AMghssiYwYNNjDEwLB5j4p1cXdBvKpNkrJhZNa0NkgXx7KUqDdYuCYWkwNQE9mWVE yFnE7nS8jZCJGZHBVrn/TMl6YkwOBzMrMnun6wor/oe5HLeBF3rKF7b88biavceop3uh VuIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.118.74 with SMTP id kk10mr38419191wjb.5.1450114803206; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:40:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:10:02 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Alejandro Acosta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 17:41:09 -0000 On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > Hello, > My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new > WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch > than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know > each other. > Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a > WG creation. Hi Alejandro, This already happens right ? Every BoF is listed on the wiki and also creation of a WG is also announced on the main IETF mailing list. So it should be easy for any interested person to join. Maybe it should be publicized better. But your point stands that it is easier to follow the work of the WG if you are involved from the beginning. Thanks Vinayak From nobody Mon Dec 14 10:06:54 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 92D841B2A11 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:52 -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 eoIIyN5vqbgt for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 869181B2A16 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id n186so58778872wmn.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k91FQZCsdOnO8caOKBB/Ol5POfs17qDg7SI0gZtvHLk=; b=wB9U5ZuL0i85YSdNSIlkRyt/U7ttoP0Ffop5YAmazBTP+ezDHJEa7PYHQGflFzh5ZW NUvz55Ng4S0VBd/yJXSo34J7FuILYd7Q3vd8EKtMXeZfysX+pHTZGQG/ZOEdGwcGYn+u Rhis8zMHHicvR53F7HppBWjKD1S+fp+II/D5lU0IJApuyP9x/h12VOURYuXolJC/nwYo 2aMWAtprVj3bSDegF3FV08nqqTN6KdzhT/A+bH74iPOMXN/pvT1O4NmHu8o2jEjGWUIM KDPYaDbjyqjI4LLVOZm8M6qkCIoQ5ztV9hAdgXdCQRdMvSBOB9O3QP4xvWojgfARvZ80 +n3Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.109.194 with SMTP id hu2mr37959633wjb.134.1450116396222; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EB2BD80-A959-4A3A-93E0-740C9BE200FF@piuha.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> <4EB2BD80-A959-4A3A-93E0-740C9BE200FF@piuha.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:36:36 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Jari Arkko Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: SM , Kathleen Moriarty , Dave Crocker , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) 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, 14 Dec 2015 18:06:52 -0000 Hi Jari, What I read from this discussion is that perception that people are being listened to and action is being taken are as important as they happening in reality. What might help is some of a transparency report which contains 1. Number of reports 2. Action taken (if privacy not violated) 3. Some description of the incident (made generic and stripped of details to anonymise) 4. Feedback to the community to avoid seeing incidents of that type (What should people do ? and how they they should report). Maybe if done once a year or half yearly it should suffice. My $0.02 Thanks Vinayak On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Dave, obviously both are important. > > With regards to providing a report from ombudsteam activities, I have per= sonally > no objection to that. But I=E2=80=99ll observe two things. First, the num= bers are very small, > so conclusions will be difficult. Even I have limited access to the infor= mation, but > it is the usual mix of a learning experience on our side and varying degr= ees > of ability to help in a particular situation. Second, the RFC-to-be-draft= -farrresnickel > says: > > Participants in an investigation (Reporters, Subjects, Respondents, > and anyone interviewed by the Ombudsteam during an investigation) are > requested to keep the details of the events and investigation > confidential. > > It is likely that members of the community will want to know more > when they have become aware of some details of a case of harassment. > The community is asked to show restraint and to trust the Ombudsteam. > This process is designed to provide remedies not punishment as > described in Section 5.2 and public discussion of the events or > remedies does not form part of this process. > > My plan is to follow what the RFC says. > > Also, the current ombudsperson setup has been temporary, and I=E2=80=99m = in the > process of setting up the team and the associated training, operating > practices, etc. > > Jari > > > > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > From nobody Mon Dec 14 10:07:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401AC1B2A40 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 AZWe6_XkM9kO for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 8D1591AD0CB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:06:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [181.165.125.191] (helo=[192.168.3.107]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a8XW4-00076j-Fb; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:06:32 +0100 To: Jari Arkko , SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:07:34 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 18:06:55 -0000 Jari, On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > >> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the >> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that >> have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. > > Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles > availability to both participate in general and being a leadership > member. My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. has not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* the meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years? It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias. > I’m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that are > specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has > proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included > standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don’t know how to > replicate that more globally. Ideas? FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. > You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should > not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that > happens, I’d like to see a situation where people are who experts in > Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get > going, at any level they desire and are suitable for. > > But again, I don’t have many ideas on how to change this, and I’m > open to suggestions… Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all folks. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Mon Dec 14 10:27:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00E31B2D21 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:27:48 -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 Eua-XwNtHFFo for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:27:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22a.google.com (mail-ig0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::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 7E4AC1B2D1E for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:27:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by igbxm8 with SMTP id xm8so90545372igb.1 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:27:46 -0800 (PST) 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=wXkgN3FsBWoqhv6OpiCBKPz1NI9mlHIVF9FxyOoh1d4=; b=Xu/7D61T8GZ2ABLcC7Tnyw95cU9X2rPyFCJ7oJN05/HpqgVXwov+y21qvPwVUhbWxY P2YdOeucHWrt1gwxW6KVKOUW9sJ+Vr87oSmrwnb67b3ekkF1h4lkCurgQRZscZo6xBrT Pd/BQD+/Wbrud8AHwmjMrTVepELrVhg26OTYgEMHhb0u9/Go3yUYxcv5iY/AbQo8Ww5B WommXjmN4YdbsxHztJySnDLQjCgLVyGf6lQG3OfRyEnyupEzJtwxY9Fm4kwUA6CGvgEn qoT8CEHUBAjdqCTi7rvbjapliGDtOpsTxeqnB+VZI94qkyeoU60133Y9oX3Jqj64rRNS brRw== X-Received: by 10.50.155.106 with SMTP id vv10mr18017274igb.36.1450117666805; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:27:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.34.134.48] ([166.170.24.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l41sm12413349iod.34.2015.12.14.10.27.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:27:45 -0800 (PST) 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 (12H143) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214085901.0f2c8468@resistor.net> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:27:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0C2D51E0-D4A0-46CA-99A7-B5B6DAC01580@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> <7524231B-ED00-4620-9D29-564555E1AB5D@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214085901.0f2c8468@resistor.net> To: SM Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Jari Arkko , "dcrocker@bbiw.net" Subject: Re: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) 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, 14 Dec 2015 18:27:49 -0000 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:27 PM, SM wrote: >=20 > Hi Kathleen, Dave, >=20 > If I understood correctly, Kathleen is arguing about not staying on the pr= oblem side while Dave is arguing that it is easier pleasant to discuss about= demographics instead of discussing about abuse. Yes, I'd prefer to focus on next steps and how we can improve. >=20 > At 05:17 14-12-2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >> of ability to help in a particular situation. Second, the RFC-to-be-draft= -farrresnickel >> says: >=20 > [snip] >=20 >> It is likely that members of the community will want to know more >> when they have become aware of some details of a case of harassment. >> The community is asked to show restraint and to trust the Ombudsteam. >=20 > In my opinion, the discussion between Kathleen and Dave highlights the dif= ficulties of trust. My question is as follows: >=20 > Why should I trust either of you if you are part of the Ombudsteam? I'm not part of that team. I don't have the training. Best regards, Kathleen=20 >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 From nobody Mon Dec 14 10:56:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20401B2D86 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:39 -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 8kGe9etPz2Xx for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 BDBB31B2D82 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id p66so58303863wmp.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7sK91RWtYfqnkFYX2NAPSly17vfWrkMyqZncLaFh+QA=; b=yI0ylHrJm5hHFVdO/6T8PnrbCQnOFg8Ct7A76O1/odm18tibtPurSoaycKJRecdik5 Ofy347BHSX0MPcvXdb5p87hLhRLFQsKY42I4p7koEoWKMgYcwWv3Z22OSkVipasOFmPg 10ADtX8L/Wt4d41c0L8fOjxvjcWtAXif2LrTh5LNng6WoB370FxUsC6GGtJl9HbSZ2kY F8h/6gfHshhO9coocv8ZGjUQieGbc7bSMCETk6FNwDvGxOgSvtMXbw6hhFScUc1NRHTm ELpq0XruzdiTJpVlxTP0O8H+EPtD9dWQqznAWsaOOmtrO13AOnLZCezKXmFdb3Y77UCq 6MPw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.218.75 with SMTP id r72mr24605441wmg.59.1450119396427; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:56:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:26:36 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Fernando Gont Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 18:56:39 -0000 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont wro= te: > On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> >>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the >>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that >>> have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. >> >> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles >> availability to both participate in general and being a leadership >> member. > > My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. has > not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* the > meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than > someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or > that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years? > > It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias. To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (number of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent). However the number of meetings is a below average metric to measure contribution. Perhaps some kind of score can be used with a threshold. another way is to check the number of citations of the RFCs and drafts (similar to the h-index in Jari's Authorstats tool) >> I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that are >> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has >> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included >> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don=E2=80=99t know how= to >> replicate that more globally. Ideas? > > FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where funding is available. >> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should >> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that >> happens, I=E2=80=99d like to see a situation where people are who expert= s in >> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get >> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for. >> >> But again, I don=E2=80=99t have many ideas on how to change this, and I= =E2=80=99m >> open to suggestions=E2=80=A6 > > Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced > chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs > becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. > > That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a > result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. > > And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different > chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all fol= ks. I have a couple of gripes against 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case. Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem space is more niche. -- Vinayak From nobody Mon Dec 14 11:53:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795941B2E46 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 1Nb56gwdRAHk for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0591B2E32 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBEJrL6e023674 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450122809; x=1450209209; bh=co4FwipS6Aemq83dgZ91V/2xp3tlvm7lH3VaHayCTpw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rSmWPWaTrhhzG+uSz41Emcy53tm1BfmgdZKD0bGd1m2oBEwGxiU/fxO3oqII1CV6T CBiLKthVGobna5m4RjpxedDhCWn6A5cqihx4OJ9KFxUAanFUehxbnaCKMcqqezXn3q VuQq0/UGbVYa0YoKUR23eZy+ZENQLHq0YqligoN8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450122809; x=1450209209; i=@resistor.net; bh=co4FwipS6Aemq83dgZ91V/2xp3tlvm7lH3VaHayCTpw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bWl/nf/tad4oMIV1WZT8xBJLCr4VAYeFRTxPIuWnkGxk1xPWguRXdddfo5zNMABtl 6Dhgsxnh+c6dSw4vcfg0ZUHZhv4DMhEERoaC57XMk4HdeVSrD8betnm88s5KWS8WVp yQpbZT85zytZ+1SXIicxVu8Co5uvenOLnZeV+3JQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214100913.0cdeab90@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:41:46 -0800 To: Jari Arkko From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 19:53:40 -0000 Hi Jari, At 06:10 14-12-2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles availability >to both participate in general and being a leadership member. Ok. >Probably toughest of the issues, and one that I have very little >tools to deal with, at least not without larger funding. I do want >to note one thing, however, which is that the IETF also works >not as an independent world of its own, but in connection with >industry and academia. Most people who do IETF work have >convinced their funding agencies that the work they do >is worthwhile from the point of view of those organisations. >You could debate whether that=92s reasonable, but one feature >that it has is that work we do has have some real-world >relationship, and that=92s not necessarily a bad thing :-) >But it can also be tough for, say, someone from a place >where there is no academic funding on networking research >or at least not some that could be combined with participation >in the IETF. I agree that it is the toughest of the=20 issues. If we could step back in time we would=20 see that there could have been funding to tackle=20 that issue. However, the funding was re-purposed for political purposes. Another way to look at "convinced their funding=20 agencies" is that those funding agencies do not=20 believe that the IETF is relevant. I'll=20 elaborate; the IETF may be perceived as some=20 distant organization that does not bring anything=20 of significance to that funding agency. Adding=20 to that, I'd say that the real-world relationship=20 might be one between the IETF and the United=20 States Government only. That raises the question=20 of whether the IETF is a national organization of=20 whether it is an international organization. :-) >I=92m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that >are specially focused on networking research, and leveraging >them has proven useful. For instance, EU research programs >have often included standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. >I don=92t know how to replicate that more globally. Ideas? The first idea I can think of is not to solve=20 this issue. That does not prevent the IETF from=20 publishing statistics to highlight the=20 issue. The other idea I can think of is to hold=20 all members of the IAB, IESG and IAOC (excluding=20 you :-)) accountable for not having the capacity=20 to come forward with suggestions about this issue. >A fair point. They really are separate (while=20 >both real). Everyone should have a >fair shot at doing the same kinds of things at=20 >the IETF, on a given expertise & >availabiity & etc level. Yes. >There=92s a separate issue of bringing in new participations. And a yet= separate >issue of how someone progresses to do more things. And on that note: > > > The concept of "pipeline" sounds=20 > interesting. Here's one way to look at the=20 > above; the random participant will have to wait=20 > ten years before the person might be eligible=20 > for the IESG. Most people would probably turn=20 > away on reading that as it is a long-term commitment. > >You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should not >require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that happens, >I=92d like to see a situation where people are who experts in Internet= technical >matters can easily join an IETF activity and get=20 >going, at any level they desire >and are suitable for. > >But again, I don=92t have many ideas on how to=20 >change this, and I=92m open to suggestions=85 Let me turn this around a little. What you would=20 be doing with the "pipeline" is to fast-track a=20 person so that he or she can gather experience at=20 a faster pace. My guess is that you would have=20 to set targets. For the situation which you=20 mentioned above, you could try some sort of pairing. >The current Gen-ART reviewers have at least one=20 >third, maybe more non-native English speakers.=20 >I=92d say if you have ideas about new Gen-ART=20 >members, let me know and we=92ll add them to the=20 >team! This team is not defined by language, it=20 >is about the willingness to use their expertise=20 >to make good reviews. But even more diversity in=20 >the good reviewers would be welcome. I haven't been keeping track of non-native=20 English speakers in the IETF lately; that might=20 explain why I am able to suggest anyone as a=20 Gen-ART member. I intentionally included place=20 of residence in my suggestion as it is a way to=20 inject culture [1] instead of language into the=20 mix. It indirectly increases diversity. Regards, -sm 1. the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or= society.=20 From nobody Mon Dec 14 13:26:55 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 B7CE71B2F84 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:26:53 -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 EfJ3_Z3IBWAt for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:26:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (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 327221B2F82 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:26:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by vkha189 with SMTP id a189so162785740vkh.2 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:26:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vGtYAwNzgN9PdS+Ef/FD9vH43A0vMzi4B7YlxrqIs/M=; b=qwx+k2s8P0GEoNKMIqmpc6AsPWd4b34amRS/+S1um89VEJHKdbrx4+HF2JDzOLai0n FCh7iilqc3FHvxu/dG0LbK4Dh/7coKrvL2aBA6R0QjhlxXePrQefKzcZL6BQvx5+i/GN pQvFaBUxjCOtc/6DRbtzbyor/pd8GkiyS/uyGfiEQNQFntp0zBGX9EjePPrfQ52US4NL 1clhWgV6zHIbE8QVVAQn89lbOS5wTT9aDe9zlyaJ3ovSieuyOMaRNY6T/gagZ1jwgVYZ 7K+/nlfUeYYP/g8XeZQULLCV8N5cka/SSedt5PLBKNZWneTQOaAid7BwaXiD9cO4e1J8 Yx2g== X-Received: by 10.31.180.145 with SMTP id d139mr23671575vkf.83.1450128411343; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([190.37.15.71]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m191sm3084857vkd.24.2015.12.14.13.26.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:26:50 -0800 (PST) To: Vinayak Hegde References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> From: Alejandro Acosta X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:56:38 -0430 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 21:26:53 -0000 El 12/14/2015 a las 1:10 PM, Vinayak Hegde escribiĂł: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Alejandro Acosta > wrote: >> Hello, >> My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new >> WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch >> than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know >> each other. >> Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a >> WG creation. > Hi Alejandro, > > This already happens right ? Every BoF is listed on the wiki and also > creation of a WG is also announced on the main IETF mailing list. So > it should be easy for any interested person to join. Maybe it should > be publicized better. But your point stands that it is easier to > follow the work of the WG if you are involved from the beginning. Hi Vanayak, Nice to tell you hello. You are right, we have being doing this for many time but I think (I'm also guilty :-) that we could do this even with more enthusiasm, I mean, when a WG is going to be created do more outreach, not only announce it in the IETF Mailing list. Maybe we can have a small team that can announce and talk about this in other events. For example, during Lacnic & Lacnog events during May & October we could talk about new around WG that were created two month ago and some that probably will be created. It should not last more than 5-10 minutes to announce this. Of course this very same formula can be copied to other internet-related events. Thanks, Alejandro, > > Thanks > Vinayak From nobody Mon Dec 14 13:48:25 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 101161B2FAC for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:48:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 8A2MXIA7Au8u for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 030BF1B2FA5 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [181.165.125.191] (helo=[192.168.3.107]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a8ayd-0007qx-0G; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:48:15 +0100 To: Alejandro Acosta , Vinayak Hegde References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:47:55 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 21:48:24 -0000 Hola, Ale, On 12/14/2015 06:26 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: > El 12/14/2015 a las 1:10 PM, Vinayak Hegde escribiĂł: >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Alejandro Acosta >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new >>> WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch >>> than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know >>> each other. >>> Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a >>> WG creation. >> Hi Alejandro, >> >> This already happens right ? Every BoF is listed on the wiki and also >> creation of a WG is also announced on the main IETF mailing list. So >> it should be easy for any interested person to join. Maybe it should >> be publicized better. But your point stands that it is easier to >> follow the work of the WG if you are involved from the beginning. > > Hi Vanayak, > Nice to tell you hello. > You are right, we have being doing this for many time but I think (I'm > also guilty :-) that we could do this even with more enthusiasm, I > mean, when a WG is going to be created do more outreach, not only > announce it in the IETF Mailing list. Maybe we can have a small team > that can announce and talk about this in other events. > For example, during Lacnic & Lacnog events during May & October we > could talk about new around WG that were created two month ago and some > that probably will be created. It should not last more than 5-10 > minutes to announce this. Of course this very same formula can be copied > to other internet-related events. I tend to disagree. I don't think the reason for which folks from developing countries don't join the IETF is that they don't get to know about wgs, but has to do with other things (I'd probably even say that the "awareness" part is the least of the problems). Most of the underlying problems can be more easily found by asking those that tried to join the IETF and failed (i.e., quitted) and those that did join and got to contribute. At times I get the impression that we're approaching the topic as kind of a "research area", where's it would probably be more straightforward to get data from individuals. e.g., find someone from Africa and ask them what was the main barrier for joining the IETF. And ask them what they think that could be done at the IETF to help them contribute more. I happened to be at a meeting kind of aimed at "improving participation from the region" (not sure if it was targeted at the LAC region, or developing countries in general), and kind of got the feeling that that there was the intent to do something about it, but for the most part it was "energy spent without careful analysis of what the underlying problem was". A bad analogy could be to try to get poor people on the Internet by donating them a high-speed Internet connection when they don't have computers and not even have electricity. -- whereas if one were to talk with them before action one could probably more easily build an action plan. My 1 peso ;-), -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Mon Dec 14 16:01:43 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 482EB1A8779 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:01:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oV-USQvVX8WH for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FE31A8775 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBF00xZT005059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:01:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450137666; x=1450224066; bh=kptzuvR+Y1rlh2bcfiF12M0rpJ8XsWEjUY4unL9jxIA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TNmPSwL37S/Ileq1YHdh5WiCCov0fiMbXVR9LHPfU+WNqE/xbBfhcwEfswoVs73pC zQypbO+VcBr7Jqa9ltdenueHfYm8y65i1slYQGTghGBJfvx+iWu/6pB8a1ZL0UklBc yy3TdyuCmV1CNsIuO3FoZVd1YpbeSzBVF0t0M6to= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450137666; x=1450224066; i=@resistor.net; bh=kptzuvR+Y1rlh2bcfiF12M0rpJ8XsWEjUY4unL9jxIA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=PUZWqaiPOrxwj6Ns9IM9rJzTTPUg18LTMOnX5E/Q1z/e1gKy4QPN6dBn9i7YgA/Ww PPdcZJnMSHcY7nEB5xML5fcjX4gDVCyyUzr9Q4ZGkjgamPZsWQTJ24fMKFKuDdqIsY 6NqsvxrhteKNJgUCSJnsNopXopVspVRkfkVSsp+w= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214155746.0ec85780@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:00:48 -0800 To: Kathleen Moriarty , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <0C2D51E0-D4A0-46CA-99A7-B5B6DAC01580@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <6BD4F67F-9CE8-48BB-916E-736605E95818@gmail.com> <566EB50D.7080306@dcrocker.net> <7524231B-ED00-4620-9D29-564555E1AB5D@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214085901.0f2c8468@resistor.net> <0C2D51E0-D4A0-46CA-99A7-B5B6DAC01580@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] Behaviors vs. Demographics (was - Re: IETF Diversity Update) 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, 15 Dec 2015 00:01:42 -0000 Hi Kathleen, At 10:27 14-12-2015, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >I'm not part of that team. I don't have the training. Thanks for the answer. Regards, -sm From nobody Mon Dec 14 16:09:32 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 9F0A21A87DB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:09:31 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 nb_sCUsh1EjG for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (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 8ACCF1A87CB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id to4so18207582igc.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:09:13 -0800 (PST) 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=tdu4heEyEvNBSxr48Gox+uM3JAYwFoI2GkJStMNIp9g=; b=wsTE2xDLOkDX3QTSQ4VpaiROEFwThqjf84Qq7pDAaVbmFIzwrqSStASRjYow8AJCpr okuKdEZrbs1dVM8EB6G5+1JpM31JguETnLOwLOodjHSr6i4Ypp5pUeKm200vrCwrSZsh IA49i75D3kt5rTguNm5RT0+zPi3/McaYLsoT0RgG/LoTP6gQNrk3QEXOQlA6louOz4CQ 9lsv2M9wSVfXMhZRE7kUnqP00ruiCXhYB152224qoaFPrjdGaY4v3KdLZQV00YW5AkeU /uhhv0pMHZADaZUTxgDtnkfd3YVYB8va5FPbKM8x0S8Jx4u3UCBr6225V4zSs/z5HSO4 psLQ== X-Received: by 10.50.43.136 with SMTP id w8mr1065947igl.53.1450138152822; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.148.249.6] ([166.170.23.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 124sm133766ioz.10.2015.12.14.16.09.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:09:11 -0800 (PST) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:09:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> To: Vinayak Hegde Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Fernando Gont , Jari Arkko , SM Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 00:09:31 -0000 Just one question inline to get your thoughts. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >=20 >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont w= rote: >>> On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>>=20 >>>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the >>>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that >>>> have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. >>>=20 >>> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles >>> availability to both participate in general and being a leadership >>> member. >>=20 >> My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. has >> not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* the >> meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than >> someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or >> that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years? >>=20 >> It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias. >=20 > To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (number > of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally > agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent). > However the number of meetings is a below average metric to measure > contribution. Perhaps some kind of score can be used with a threshold. > another way is to check the number of citations of the RFCs and drafts > (similar to the h-index in Jari's Authorstats tool) >=20 >>> I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that are= >>> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has >>> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included >>> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don=E2=80=99t know how= to >>> replicate that more globally. Ideas? >>=20 >> FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. >=20 > +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where > funding is available. >=20 >>> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should >>> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that >>> happens, I=E2=80=99d like to see a situation where people are who expert= s in >>> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get >>> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for. >>>=20 >>> But again, I don=E2=80=99t have many ideas on how to change this, and I=E2= =80=99m >>> open to suggestions=E2=80=A6 >>=20 >> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced >> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs >> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. >>=20 >> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a >> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. >>=20 >> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different >> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all fol= ks. >=20 > I have a couple of gripes against > 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. > Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to > conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option befo= re becoming a chair? Thanks, Kathleen=20 >=20 > 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are > fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if > the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people > Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case. >=20 > Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem > space is more niche. >=20 > -- Vinayak >=20 > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity From nobody Mon Dec 14 16:30:08 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 B23AE1A88C3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 0UGpVxZZpUz2 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 516701A889F for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [181.165.125.191] (helo=[192.168.3.107]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a8dV8-0000PR-To; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 01:29:59 +0100 To: Kathleen Moriarty , Vinayak Hegde References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566F5F3A.2070304@si6networks.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:30:50 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 00:30:07 -0000 On 12/14/2015 09:09 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >>> >>> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different >>> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all folks. >> >> I have a couple of gripes against >> 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. >> Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to >> conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) > > What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option before becoming a chair? A good idea. However, I'd argue that the ultimate goal is to give opportunities to all people. i.e., secretary eventually becomes fresh chair, fresh chair eventually becomes experience chair, etc. I think this would be valuable not only in terms of diversity (in all forms.. gender, geographical location, affiliations, etc.) but also helps keep the process healthy: renewal in leadeship becomes the rule (rather than "what happened that X quit?"). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Mon Dec 14 18:34:40 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 95BAC1ADBFC for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:34:38 -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 vTj3A0TGXCzD for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE2A81B29A3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by vkca188 with SMTP id a188so167931469vkc.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:33:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lMn7eS0zANkmcEKKKE50OvRcEOE43a7ekRHGQRPOAb8=; b=zmN9uoBDE8h/0gzNSmMkMNxkrIvennCzONRCI4C2FqLbiGgUqbPnObEe6VZZbNd4oF sVZO1Roifd6lsSy/rnL5/sgirqhEa5YCwn8W7Ex9hTSz9ln4I0K4xdxm7pKV/JubO0i1 TzuYa+YAk8XkJjF1nK3G8oA/gbAxXvBRSVBvP6QkF8XRQRQpMJPFrCuWdZdCvq/WiaQt xb4NAdttZo1s1/PRhKzsVgncSa/OUPr3GT4jZz7Lx4Fr4QdgMP106iI5Fn7sEQHAGQeF N/fcSTQnIZfEeCkP8/8GLm/vZr1TNSh5H948CoapAmyi2ZtKyUDVEDl2DFxamA0lwS2a G+hQ== X-Received: by 10.31.146.66 with SMTP id u63mr24970013vkd.31.1450146825914; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([190.37.15.71]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id b187sm3167860vka.4.2015.12.14.18.33.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:33:45 -0800 (PST) To: Fernando Gont , Vinayak Hegde References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> From: Alejandro Acosta X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:03:40 -0430 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 02:34:38 -0000 Hola Fer, El 12/14/2015 a las 5:17 PM, Fernando Gont escribiĂł: > Hola, Ale, > > On 12/14/2015 06:26 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> El 12/14/2015 a las 1:10 PM, Vinayak Hegde escribiĂł: >>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Alejandro Acosta >>> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> My two cents: A good moment to try to bring people to IETF is when new >>>> WG are created. I believe that it's easier to participate from scratch >>>> than when the WG already has many documents and some people already know >>>> each other. >>>> Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a >>>> WG creation. >>> Hi Alejandro, >>> >>> This already happens right ? Every BoF is listed on the wiki and also >>> creation of a WG is also announced on the main IETF mailing list. So >>> it should be easy for any interested person to join. Maybe it should >>> be publicized better. But your point stands that it is easier to >>> follow the work of the WG if you are involved from the beginning. >> Hi Vanayak, >> Nice to tell you hello. >> You are right, we have being doing this for many time but I think (I'm >> also guilty :-) that we could do this even with more enthusiasm, I >> mean, when a WG is going to be created do more outreach, not only >> announce it in the IETF Mailing list. Maybe we can have a small team >> that can announce and talk about this in other events. >> For example, during Lacnic & Lacnog events during May & October we >> could talk about new around WG that were created two month ago and some >> that probably will be created. It should not last more than 5-10 >> minutes to announce this. Of course this very same formula can be copied >> to other internet-related events. > I tend to disagree. > > I don't think the reason for which folks from developing countries don't > join the IETF is that they don't get to know about wgs, but has to do > with other things (I'd probably even say that the "awareness" part is > the least of the problems). Uhh, maybe my message was not explicitly enough. I'm not talking specifically about why the people to do not get involve in IETF, just at least the people to be aware of. Some folks at the IETF have been trying to do some outreach, talking in some events about IETF, etc, etc. All of that is fantastic, my position is trying to an extra job when a WG is going to be created, that's all. Thinking aloud I believe we can arrange an "outreach team for new WG" The reasons: a) it's easier to participate when a WG is starting, b) it's easier to follow documents c) to interact with other might be simpler. After that, I hope the people can eventually get involve. (which is more or less what you said but I just want to be more clear) I might be wrong but I image that if someone in a room tells to a bunch of people: "IETF is creating a NEW WG to connect bla bla bla using bla bla bla..., everyone can participate and is free, bla bla bla" what I expect is that the concept of new WG where nothing has been done yet can be attractive..., I'm probably wrong but I think this deserve a try. > > Most of the underlying problems can be more easily found by asking those > that tried to join the IETF and failed (i.e., quitted) and those that > did join and got to contribute. Good idea! > > At times I get the impression that we're approaching the topic as kind > of a "research area", where's it would probably be more straightforward > to get data from individuals. e.g., find someone from Africa and ask > them what was the main barrier for joining the IETF. And ask them what > they think that could be done at the IETF to help them contribute more. +1 > > I happened to be at a meeting kind of aimed at "improving participation > from the region" (not sure if it was targeted at the LAC region, or > developing countries in general), and kind of got the feeling that that > there was the intent to do something about it, but for the most part it > was "energy spent without careful analysis of what the underlying > problem was". > > A bad analogy could be to try to get poor people on the Internet by > donating them a high-speed Internet connection when they don't have > computers and not even have electricity. -- whereas if one were to talk > with them before action one could probably more easily build an action plan. Yes, bad analogy :-) > > My 1 peso ;-), Thanks, Alejandro, From nobody Mon Dec 14 18:46:31 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 466C41B29B9 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:46:30 -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 W53PaheXS5lJ for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 6B3CF1B29B8 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by vkca188 with SMTP id a188so168070516vkc.0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:46:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5oy8UwU39HwbssBdgqbxTt9TRqiYOPCELM5W0IWCMrk=; b=lRj5woQ1YnSe2QI4Orwcq8VV33maVQbePKZ1BkUFDPl+HVk4zK3o5UBegjl0kXVgC7 2kKdN0CTlEyu6tSiH2N6nif7mO8LnDB8eDZSsaAEocaWeXxbd74dfBRTbuOCmHgFVCey tI7B/4VVSLq+5MED5+R2jLL+hglNwS9gJucyH7jp61Pmll1C0E17yuqXHZ66v26z+xmv MaGUT/euQ/M7KAnyLR38f5fEcShXrEnMJmurUN7fb5G4I37Y4DYbTlHHMpQvXw5tFGFk 9USidwNn7gQuGmJwzSY6ir3Ss/Hcy4E+hVMxYQPkWNcPBSZy1hJrCFpggk5t1zZSlEK9 pWLw== X-Received: by 10.31.0.136 with SMTP id 130mr9416553vka.139.1450147587641; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:46:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([190.37.15.71]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m191sm3193578vkd.24.2015.12.14.18.46.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:46:27 -0800 (PST) To: Kathleen Moriarty , SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151211214439.0ecf5720@resistor.net> <566C431F.8040102@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151212082232.0d8fe4b0@resistor.net> <2A029816-27E1-466E-8D89-1ED0AA3084C4@gmail.com> From: Alejandro Acosta Message-ID: <566F7F03.9050705@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:16:27 -0430 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2A029816-27E1-466E-8D89-1ED0AA3084C4@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 02:46:30 -0000 El 12/12/2015 a las 5:10 PM, Kathleen Moriarty escribió: > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 12, 2015, at 12:44 PM, SM wrote: >> >> Hi Alejandro, >> >> It's nice to hear from you. :-) >> >> At 07:54 12-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >>> Right.., maybe I'm talking in a utopia way. But I guess if there is a WG >>> that will be created and we do some outreach before the formal creation >>> then there will be more new people and the isolation feeling is not that >>> big. The same case in the short term after the creation. I'm not aware >>> this has being done before, if so, sorry to be redundant. Also, AFAIK >>> new WG generally speaking have young people (again, AFAIK), that is -not >>> limited to- our target. >> I see what you mean; if there are more new people when the Working Group work begins the new person won't feel isolated. I don't think that what you are proposing is a utopian way. If something has been done before and it did not work, that does not mean that it will not work if you try it. I would encourage you to try it if you have the opportunity to do so. >> >>> That's beyond what I had in mine. I'm just talking about general >>> participation, I mean, follow the mailing list, give some feedback after >>> the publication of a document. Then, WG Chair, RFCs authoring should >>> come automatically after the people feed engage with IETF. >> It's difficult to get a person to participate as the person might not see the use of doing that. I asked about RFC authoring and WG chairing as it is then easier for the person to determine whether it is worth his/her effort or not. > Another in-between step is to be a WG secretary. It does help prep to be a chair. Either asking or having a chair or AD identity candidates is helpful as not all realize this is an option since there are very few of them. I like this idea...... +1 > > Best regards, > Kathleen >> Regards, >> -sm >> _______________________________________________ >> diversity mailing list >> diversity@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity From nobody Mon Dec 14 23:31:21 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 C821F1B2BC6 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:19 -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] 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 mTk_xs2XjRzC for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97171A883E for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBF7V6B1007662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450164672; x=1450251072; bh=3xXLsxkJ3czxINB9Y1Svmfs3JiIIuOdSsJfxgbGj+Vk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=c0srgkpbWHjwwZ1NTexCHaXHqajooGouVBdh1JOifnYtrWwnn0rWuoGvq83YikHwN 0UBpNKXmajTEwpi8AuY8gySBXGWv6+/i9Y8T/DSI716bUzdcQ2WCtaGioGoxNGw20V QTDOFsx4EkaNZex5FQdGZ5vv4bAujVnhevYDUwuw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450164672; x=1450251072; i=@resistor.net; bh=3xXLsxkJ3czxINB9Y1Svmfs3JiIIuOdSsJfxgbGj+Vk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Dk4sDz3xJIG854U977hTnusP0co15ZG7Uz8yzrSp3PPp+yGOxa9peVRV78Ih9ADLb hDP1OFHFDtwOHPXJ/WzmaKOrzvor2IJhOwwSosqKlP7lJ3KGSEXZiw9JKnAuwJFLPJ gTedgGGr05BzQTss3L+NEx/ebcewivVJyoMbvkmM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:01 -0800 To: Alejandro Acosta From: SM In-Reply-To: <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 07:31:19 -0000 Hi Alejandro, At 18:33 14-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >Uhh, maybe my message was not explicitly enough. >I'm not talking specifically about why the people to do not get involve >in IETF, just at least the people to be aware of. Some folks at the >IETF have been trying to do some outreach, talking in some events about >IETF, etc, etc. All of that is fantastic, my position is trying to an Could you please share the names of the persons who have been trying to do some outreach? Regards, -sm From nobody Tue Dec 15 00:03:34 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 945751A875C for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:33 -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 mMZeX4ULTZEx for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4D021AD2EE for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id n186so152605951wmn.1 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m0t57jEPnkbqUYmVSiKXKeie5kgEHdCOn8IXhVsL+MY=; b=PkPfdECvgiJVYsaxVDX8AWmhhCsr6XRzAxs27WTuOatyNg+cJSLTl8s3BuJ7Y7PXSR VsxtQwvABnewljYRz3TLAFy28WfWdyb08pcJqSmFGYmLYe3DYu2bbE+dZee7u1Z+A2ad ENiR26WoqEzAOrJE/mxj2aHdxCOcO/H4qG0VhDBHyTp/BT4k2pWLYNl3paS/JxLyXtC8 UX+mbXfuLqK9ZiNsTa7z0erMQ+Mu7gdiyLA7HaQAq8LozV8FokR8enBrt3oxj/VZyXLv 10KNlf0F9TxG4U2JmQWSQQuJ7enIeeNo2LhaTs4eA5m1VUchqGqpixd00mdYFFR1iXIa /6Yw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.118.74 with SMTP id kk10mr41846740wjb.5.1450166601484; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:03:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <566F1E2A.7010007@gont.com.ar> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <566F1E2A.7010007@gont.com.ar> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:21 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Fernando Gont Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 08:03:33 -0000 On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Fernando Gont wrote= : > Hi, Vinayak, > > On 12/14/2015 03:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont = wrote: >>> On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the >>>>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that >>>>> have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. >>>> >>>> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles >>>> availability to both participate in general and being a leadership >>>> member. >>> >>> My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. ha= s >>> not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* th= e >>> meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than >>> someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or >>> that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years? >>> >>> It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias. >> >> To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (number >> of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally >> agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent). > > How does attending a meeting, by itself, result in a contribution? > Someone could sit at a meeting and do email, or, for instance, use > earphones and listen to music. > > Comments on the mike, posts to mailing-lists, published I-Ds, and > published RFCs seem to be better indications than simply "attending a > meeting". If it wasn't clear in my message, I am agreeing with you on this. >>>> I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that a= re >>>> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has >>>> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included >>>> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don=E2=80=99t know h= ow to >>>> replicate that more globally. Ideas? >>> >>> FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. >> >> +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where >> funding is available. > > FWIW, in developing countries its *both* funding and awareness. +1 Again in agreement. >>>> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should >>>> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that >>>> happens, I=E2=80=99d like to see a situation where people are who expe= rts in >>>> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get >>>> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for. >>>> >>>> But again, I don=E2=80=99t have many ideas on how to change this, and = I=E2=80=99m >>>> open to suggestions=E2=80=A6 >>> >>> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced >>> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs >>> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. >>> >>> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a >>> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. >>> >>> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different >>> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all f= olks. >> >> I have a couple of gripes against >> 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. > > I think that's where the AD kicks in. I saw another thread where I read that ADs already do a lot of work so I personally don't think that this will be scalable especially for areas which have lots of WGs. >> Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to >> conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) > > Not sure what you mean. A lot of decisions in a WG are judgement calls with help of the community. Especially in cases where the the consensus is split / very rough. Especially there is high chance of bias when the WG chairs are from different competing vendors. Although people contribute to the IETF as individuals, there is some inherent bias for your employer / colleagues. Again not an easy fix. Also do not have good solutions to propose here. >> 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are >> fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if >> the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people >> Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case. > > Well, you could also argue that > > * most wgs have nowadays at least two chairs.. so that's already the > case. The only difference here is that the chairs would always change. > > * If you don't aim at diversity and open participation as described, > then you're fomenting the problem: many folks may feel that they are > excluded from IETF management etc., so they don't care to get involved > in procedural issues. I have seen the change of chairs work quite well for eg. in the case of IPPM which is a long running group and have seen change of two chairs. >> Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem >> space is more niche. > > If it is actually an issue, then you can always fall back to th current > situation. However, I really doubt this is actually the case for most WGs= . I think this solution should be tried in a few WGs before rolling it out organizationally. Also the solution proposed by Kathleen of a Secretary is also a decent solution as it will give a good helping hand to the WG chairs as well as train the person working as secretary. -- Vinayak From nobody Tue Dec 15 00:13:11 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 8D6561ACEE0 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:13:10 -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 YD8vkX8UOUFX for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:13:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 8C7D21A875A for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:13:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p66so97648770wmp.1 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:13:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4vqKNkS9TSKbvGb9kuGhfQ/ZQrtbQcWHtuhdclKcHYY=; b=k3MPvXEhXT35fJbjyKge5l/o8AQzriBntq0PZLH1Be9U5lDwrGqL7mZngPdUXTRkX+ TixOoByAqLLOCfwXyIs5kju9iHHFU8fA39r4rF7dxg4q3KXmPL9iuZsPQcPRHSxgY9PE B/b6GhNSJ52eKACffWmJ6qborCDGLxZOvellpdUuJ6XNc15BPMk2N8U2J2XdcfThJLdY bJviC5hiLXxyaZDl9s3sTjWWhZoNQFDJ8KxSjak0//2YgrdtGnuXpZnuPrDa8hVQYRjw wuW13iZMF6NKyaRHNs8jR+GLAYjnursHA+HZQqEPb4LzHVASz7oEAJHpJeKnR1rnxViA EqEw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.87.39 with SMTP id u7mr42959944wjz.11.1450167187125; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:13:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:43:06 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , Fernando Gont , Jari Arkko , SM Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 08:13:10 -0000 On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > Just one question inline to get your thoughts. > >> On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced >>> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs >>> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. >>> >>> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a >>> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. >>> >>> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different >>> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all folks. >> >> I have a couple of gripes against >> 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. >> Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to >> conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) > > What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option before becoming a chair? > Sounds like a really good idea to me. Gives enough time for person to gain experience + give IETF enough time to make sure that the person can make the cut for a WG chair. Bonus point for implementation is that we can do this on a WG by WG basis to see how well it works in practice. Thanks Vinayak From nobody Tue Dec 15 00:55:29 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 B64CA1A00FA for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:55:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVKNbffZTGqt for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:55:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1594A1A00E4 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:55:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBF8tDuU019257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:55:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450169719; x=1450256119; bh=JYLVty0P9eq7/hN4RAeScDpnUDdX65swr9RBGX9nrPA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=3duTmcvp6WwiNaRmjNjCq2+o5HcdP5mLbohhvlsdHoROoDOLDv8YZFXDpgJtBRIPS /QvO4fIKUsMezKxkdKtA5rwgYWdH1H38mayzhBsZ9EJnlkRl8ldBb3wYxTF5WDY6LX qkCUy6atx0B+Vr/jM/N1D/gkHbh/jMiFBceR3IHE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450169719; x=1450256119; i=@resistor.net; bh=JYLVty0P9eq7/hN4RAeScDpnUDdX65swr9RBGX9nrPA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=DXTciU60ZE1gFjGzeePOBElHOw16hT/ILbTsjCcKxXPXNpFnmNEzb/lLKRyL2g29n eVAoMo6dTJJUshweWv3hGSp1KoiGaFaxPggc+Jzt9cJryC7K/aMIGZPwN2XOGWYNCJ rPpt2aOToaHh5ImlsZps0nOIP1vmTrshroS1wuYw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215003126.0f120aa0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:51:51 -0800 To: Kathleen Moriarty , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 08:55:27 -0000 Hi Kathleen, At 16:09 14-12-2015, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training >option before becoming a chair? I would look at the past performance of a person. If the person is interested in long-term participation the person could be asked to do some work as Working Group Secretary. Regards, -sm From nobody Tue Dec 15 02:41:09 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 BEA3D1A016E for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:41:07 -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 rdHQTCnx09ZK for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:41:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (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 626611A0151 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:41:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id a189so2664219vkh.2 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:41:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wJgeplbF8o1D/Zll31EUYwKl2TpK5nqu/Y5tPsogrtQ=; b=t2c6H0Gz4d+XT9/IYkVc9jkKKNNjqqb2JOBaU+2mYFjMk+6Zwv4hjVD1GRBN1VsQOk fFay4tSkg1ohh5qjZ8Am6Mn6xwo6icAbqY2pQW/Y60ujE1sK5+MCVKKTsW/rnU1m0cYp O0bAFNxTpzwsEKr1fDJVVhilyv4xyUw85ZR1HLgRgQAbEPOAggk2ERIrlBTb4LSPnDx4 iOziRSNVVkuje4L0+WKCTYr/mI/kkCPJLBtcFPFud1J5PSXZ+yzVHKITjLikx9YAUdU+ QhhJH2beeHo9+53qEN0qAKspafJ4Cb48I2lyFzWF0+Ss2kFdRp96z7M5GN62XwMpdbwa 1Dmw== X-Received: by 10.31.141.65 with SMTP id p62mr28441372vkd.93.1450176065467; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([190.37.15.71]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s10sm55649vks.1.2015.12.15.02.41.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:41:04 -0800 (PST) To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> From: Alejandro Acosta X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566FEE3B.6090500@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:10:59 -0430 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org, "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 10:41:08 -0000 Hi SM, El 12/15/2015 a las 3:01 AM, SM escribió: > Hi Alejandro, > At 18:33 14-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> Uhh, maybe my message was not explicitly enough. >> I'm not talking specifically about why the people to do not get involve >> in IETF, just at least the people to be aware of. Some folks at the >> IETF have been trying to do some outreach, talking in some events about >> IETF, etc, etc. All of that is fantastic, my position is trying to an > > Could you please share the names of the persons who have been trying > to do some outreach? SM, just curious, what for?. Anyway at least I will mention Alvaro Retana (on cc), he has always willing to present things about IETF and he also invites people to participate and get involve. Alvaro, I'm not sure if you follow this mailing list, we are talking about IETF & Outreach...., I did not want to say your name without copying you. > > Regards, > -sm Regards, Alejandro, From nobody Tue Dec 15 03:50:58 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 F08611A873C for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:50:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EenzcDX7kb3a for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD04F1A872F for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBFBod2H008330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:50:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450180246; x=1450266646; bh=6M+NDYRVobpaDcHFvPFpDXsa/TcghfkbEetdVDXpfH0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=4E57fsg3C5VrdxkcWwRM8TjhGt/7jGkHXoE8ax3zorotKoyzTrgG8VGx+KvpAu1El WCrZWQP741A9w/xbxPtJpvZiBCz9zGQtvHgLVFDhIGpSTnD4hxn1gTraVvJdWllDGg 8lSmay8EpKejouuqa01q7o4zyrOPM+6SQc9SpSic= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450180246; x=1450266646; i=@resistor.net; bh=6M+NDYRVobpaDcHFvPFpDXsa/TcghfkbEetdVDXpfH0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=EGlJxFkyDRl8YuDgKnNWm+wHNU/jyYenfq3EzeqneovkVVKqR0XJoNJ7McguiRL40 NeReBkeprF1uSiXEPQpEXUgK7cOE8uZ0VLJLIPtCBhYvIAKKviJWT4l5tal7nLuJPA gQDkllaVXzBvKinLLYH0kbDlElGmNP79KkeWbay0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215030338.0d47d3c8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:44:12 -0800 To: Alejandro Acosta , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <566FEE3B.6090500@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> <566FEE3B.6090500@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 11:50:57 -0000 Hi Alejandro, At 02:40 15-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >SM, just curious, what for?. Anyway at least I will mention Alvaro >Retana (on cc), he has always willing to present things about IETF and >he also invites people to participate and get involve. I sometimes verify information I am given. As "some folks at the IETF have been ..." is not factual information I asked for the names of the persons. If you believe that the persons are doing good work you are giving them recognition for their work. Regards, -sm From nobody Tue Dec 15 04:05:29 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 E01841A87E1 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:05:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 1RrttcPjndC0 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 D06001A8768 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 04:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [181.165.125.191] (helo=[192.168.3.107]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a8oKc-0003Pl-JB; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:03:51 +0100 To: SM , Alejandro Acosta References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:42:11 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 12:05:28 -0000 On 12/15/2015 04:31 AM, SM wrote: > Hi Alejandro, > At 18:33 14-12-2015, Alejandro Acosta wrote: >> Uhh, maybe my message was not explicitly enough. >> I'm not talking specifically about why the people to do not get involve >> in IETF, just at least the people to be aware of. Some folks at the >> IETF have been trying to do some outreach, talking in some events about >> IETF, etc, etc. All of that is fantastic, my position is trying to an > > Could you please share the names of the persons who have been trying to > do some outreach? I'm not they "you" you meant :-), but I can provide names: * Marcelo Bagnulo * Alvaro Retana * Alejandro Acosta himself * Fernando Gont (i.e., me :-) ) * Christian O'Flaherty I started doing some sort of (unsolicited :-) ) outreach since at least 2007 (see slide 16 of ). For English-speakers, the text in slide 16 roughly says: "There's only a tiny bit of latin-american participation in the IETF (3 authors, according to http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/countrydistr.html), very likely as a result of lack of funding from companies, educational organizations, and other organizations. This is something probably worth considering for those in a position to do something about it." That said, I don't think "lack of awareness" is the real problem here. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Tue Dec 15 06:09:27 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 753B31A899D for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:09:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 ZqFOIukzCW-m for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 ECA891A899C for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id tBFE2I9p048661; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:09:16 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 1yrga506y5-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:09:16 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBFE9For000572; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:09:16 -0500 Received: from alpi132.aldc.att.com (alpi132.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.2]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBFE98wg000461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:09:13 -0500 Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.218.155]) by alpi132.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:08:59 GMT Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.210]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:08:58 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: Kathleen Moriarty , "diversity@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update Thread-Index: AQHRL9utnWG5K7Vf6EuRbvTC4gMerZ6+P+gAgAFuwICAB/niAIACXoYAgADfboCAAEI5AIAADbMAgABXU4CAAIc3AIAABF/g Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:08:58 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114254E064@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.61.166.72] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2015-12-15_07:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1507310007 definitions=main-1512150235 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 14:09:26 -0000 > > What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option > > before becoming a chair? >=20 > Sounds like a really good idea to me. Gives enough time for person to gai= n > experience + give IETF enough time to make sure that the person can make > the cut for a WG chair. Bonus point for implementation is that we can do = this > on a WG by WG basis to see how well it works in practice. Just to provide an alternate opinion... As someone who has often volunteered to take minutes or be jabber scribe, I= think the idea of closing these jobs to volunteers (by making them fixed p= ositions) may have undesired consequences. If "secretaries" were selected i= n the same manner as chairs and authors, I think it could actually make it = harder for some people to get involved/noticed. WG chairs and authors appear to me to be selected by ADs and WG chairs (res= pectively) from among the pool of people who are known to them, without any= open call for volunteers. At least this has been my experience. Volunteeri= ng to take minutes (on a session-by-session basis) has been one job that pe= ople can use to demonstrate a willingness to step forward and do work, and = become known. The other ways, of course, are to review and comment on draft= s, and write individual drafts. The advantage of starting involvement by mi= nute-taking (as opposed to draft-writing or commenting) is you don't immedi= ately make yourself into a target. This makes for a kinder and gentler entr= y into the world of IETF involvement. My vote would be to continue to allow note-taking to be filled by volunteer= s on a session-by-session basis. Barbara From nobody Tue Dec 15 06:52:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC931A8A85 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:52:14 -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 jDxPinMe0N_w for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:52:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D99C1A8A80 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:52:12 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2AABQA3Q8ZV/yYyC4dbGQEBglQsgT0GqW4GmzwCgSY8EAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAQMSCx0yCg8EAgEIDQQEAQELFAkHMhQJCAIEARIIFAaIDAGsdaA6AQEBAQEFAQEBAQEBARuGH4UyhFg4BoMSgRQFlQsBjiuHMIhaiCoXD4N9b4FIgQQBAQE X-IPAS-Result: A2AABQA3Q8ZV/yYyC4dbGQEBglQsgT0GqW4GmzwCgSY8EAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAQMSCx0yCg8EAgEIDQQEAQELFAkHMhQJCAIEARIIFAaIDAGsdaA6AQEBAQEFAQEBAQEBARuGH4UyhFg4BoMSgRQFlQsBjiuHMIhaiCoXD4N9b4FIgQQBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,634,1432612800"; d="scan'208";a="156489318" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast-smtpauth.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.38]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2015 09:52:10 -0500 X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 15 Dec 2015 09:52:10 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:52:08 +0100 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "STARK, BARBARA H" , Kathleen Moriarty , "diversity@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update Thread-Index: AQHRL9utRcnwDL+3MEKSJpjjEEeIyZ6+P+gAgAFuwICAB/niAIACXoYAgADfboCAAEI5AIAADbMAgABXU4CAAIc3AIAABF/ggAAWMDA= Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:52:08 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC7C51@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114254E064@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114254E064@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.48] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 14:52:15 -0000 Hi, +1 on continuing to allow note-taking to be filled by volunteers on a sessi= on-by-session basis. I beg to differ on selection of authors ' from among the pool of people who= are known to them'. My experience as author and as WG chair is different. = Anybody can submit individual submissions and become authors. WG I-Ds are s= elected - typically by WG consensus - from the existing pool of individual = I-Ds. So becoming an author is rarely if at all a nomination, but the resul= t of active contributions.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: diversity [mailto:diversity-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of STARK, > BARBARA H > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:09 PM > To: Kathleen Moriarty; diversity@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update >=20 > > > What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training > > > option before becoming a chair? > > > > Sounds like a really good idea to me. Gives enough time for person to > > gain experience + give IETF enough time to make sure that the person > > can make the cut for a WG chair. Bonus point for implementation is > > that we can do this on a WG by WG basis to see how well it works in > practice. >=20 > Just to provide an alternate opinion... > As someone who has often volunteered to take minutes or be jabber scribe, > I think the idea of closing these jobs to volunteers (by making them fixe= d > positions) may have undesired consequences. If "secretaries" were selecte= d > in the same manner as chairs and authors, I think it could actually make = it > harder for some people to get involved/noticed. >=20 > WG chairs and authors appear to me to be selected by ADs and WG chairs > (respectively) from among the pool of people who are known to them, > without any open call for volunteers. At least this has been my experienc= e. > Volunteering to take minutes (on a session-by-session basis) has been one > job that people can use to demonstrate a willingness to step forward and = do > work, and become known. The other ways, of course, are to review and > comment on drafts, and write individual drafts. The advantage of starting > involvement by minute-taking (as opposed to draft-writing or commenting) > is you don't immediately make yourself into a target. This makes for a ki= nder > and gentler entry into the world of IETF involvement. >=20 > My vote would be to continue to allow note-taking to be filled by volunte= ers > on a session-by-session basis. > Barbara >=20 From nobody Tue Dec 15 07:47:17 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 000A41A9023 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:47:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bs1e5QxynUCm for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1315E1A9007 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBFFkw7a022248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:47:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450194427; x=1450280827; bh=BHjgRvvYs520oIg2wibQP0ZeHeQp145+LzJb5sBEfDs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=al8FVA9uPDjvv9zuYjZqh8HnnQAIhD0HiewiiojMEiXsZyjCYRnuEN4w5IScwfrSL HNIECCGEwwp8FzWwIv2Z4saKpVKefvrIWFf+cTp3Py+BmonG45mRY0yckWzcalV2ih cCUp/J2Cx5eMGkxCWCJAFekkOgRFv5d6Qwd1zkbE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450194427; x=1450280827; i=@resistor.net; bh=BHjgRvvYs520oIg2wibQP0ZeHeQp145+LzJb5sBEfDs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=syCzUzKkPlIvN/EKLSIPV27K9hplC5oQiT2AG4EuAMvqPABIm89SMzuvcqmPbwFfN MupeCQpwU3MmAHXLvcHBo1L1lo2HG0jpKZUO129ru+SWsRBfXgM/vGWE4vYkDxOAWe kPZBcOE8mv4N250P7zKswX0jvhvLVItahF3Rz/Rg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:45:11 -0800 To: Fernando Gont , Vinayak Hegde , Alejandro Acosta , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: diversity@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 15:47:16 -0000 Hi Fernando, Vinayak, Alejandro, At 00:42 15-12-2015, Fernando Gont wrote: >I'm not they "you" you meant :-), but I can provide names: Fernando, thanks for providing the information. >That said, I don't think "lack of awareness" is the real problem here. From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00700.html 'kind of got the feeling that that there was the intent to do something about it, but for the most part it was "energy spent without careful analysis of what the underlying problem was".' From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00695.html I read that the agencies providing funding for countries in Latin America do not find it useful to spend money on IETF standardisation work. The statistics provided by Jari Arkko measures IETF Contributions in terms of RFC authorship. I could be a WG Secretary/Chair; that has less "value" unless I am interested in becoming An Area Director. A company/agency would view it useful if it derives a benefit from having a person in that position. What is your opinion about the above? Regards, -sm From nobody Tue Dec 15 13:37:11 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 089871AD1C3 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 Wifn-COTEqxd for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9E31ACE89 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id n186so114740987wmn.0 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wJNUpjFMuinULIH89Y0fCkNVkC4K77saLhKaUc2/8AE=; b=FswFytDlyIoXIrZI3PpzGCF4rvBg+MpylfJebHT4GPFUB3gWpTklAjr45fa0PHPbyI QVjuEI4DTjYmf19ZXIP3CD/s45oDK8mkRt5SHA3AX2wLoiUc8QYOYYvZRdTDNzQii3wt 7550PTScRle/XQbjxkvglrBd0DEdE5QHsXAhgkUPpvxHrGLUUDU2NOToaQfS5rue9Hut EGBDYp7meb2lFuggHeBWW8cT3Py0t0y+j6lm7V81uGKPVzW3hFZQ3TNpCsbimYOMf3GU xz1HAqhvHf6RN2Mx79KYyS23V/JlwbyvG/5T9zwcv7PLUWHcxvYdMTKwSDvk6v/xAhqD 6big== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.109.194 with SMTP id hu2mr45441163wjb.134.1450215424487; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:07:04 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: SM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: Fernando Gont , Alejandro Acosta , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 15 Dec 2015 21:37:10 -0000 On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:15 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Fernando, Vinayak, Alejandro, > At 00:42 15-12-2015, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> I'm not they "you" you meant :-), but I can provide names: > > > Fernando, thanks for providing the information. > >> That said, I don't think "lack of awareness" is the real problem here. > > > From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00700.html > > 'kind of got the feeling that that there was the intent to do > something about it, but for the most part it was "energy spent > without careful analysis of what the underlying problem was".' > > From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00695.html I > read that the agencies providing funding for countries in Latin America do > not find it useful to spend money on IETF standardisation work. > > The statistics provided by Jari Arkko measures IETF Contributions in terms > of RFC authorship. I could be a WG Secretary/Chair; that has less "value" > unless I am interested in becoming An Area Director. A company/agency would > view it useful if it derives a benefit from having a person in that > position. > > What is your opinion about the above? Hi SM, I am not sure what Fernando is refering to: I think I have pointed out some common issues that I (and other from my region have faced). 1. Awareness of the IETF - How the IETF process can be beneficial for companies / organizations to build better and interoperable products. Outreach and sometimes lack of role models and mentors is also an issue (covered in next point) 2. Lack of a good mentor network - How do you go and get feedback about the process and drafts from someone local or someone who is from the same culture and / or talks the same language and understand IETF. 3. Funding - Harder to come by in developing countries but I have seen this changing slowly but surely. ISOC and other local organizations are doing a good job here. I can see the efforts of these helping. 4. Visas - This is often the elephant in the room. It is just painful to get a visa if you are in a developing country and the amount of documentation needed is insane. I have often submitted 200+ pages of documentation and had my visa rejected for flimsy reasons. This is something people from US/Europe do not face as much and understand. Again This has gotten better over the years (such as personalized IETF invitation letters). I can see that the IETF is helping in 1 (but can do much more), 2 is slowly getting fixed due to mentoring network / regional mentors thanks to individual efforts (Nalini, Alvaro, Christian amongst others), 3 (nothing much IETF can do AFAIK here - thrugh not charging so far for remote access has been helpful), 4 - IETF has improved here over the lasy 5 years but still some way to go (like hosting hotel rooms getting sold out). Thanks Vinayak From nobody Wed Dec 16 22:18:21 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 D62A41AD094 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:18:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 R5_qTSIW0lrt for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 7B8651AD084 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.hotelramada.com ([181.198.69.235] helo=[192.168.7.52]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a9RtC-0001jK-8n; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:18:10 +0100 To: SM , Vinayak Hegde , Alejandro Acosta , diversity@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56724E07.2090800@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:54:15 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 17 Dec 2015 06:18:20 -0000 On 12/15/2015 12:45 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Fernando, Vinayak, Alejandro, > At 00:42 15-12-2015, Fernando Gont wrote: >> I'm not they "you" you meant :-), but I can provide names: > > Fernando, thanks for providing the information. > >> That said, I don't think "lack of awareness" is the real problem here. > > From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00700.html > > 'kind of got the feeling that that there was the intent to do > something about it, but for the most part it was "energy spent > without careful analysis of what the underlying problem was".' > > From > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00695.html I > read that the agencies providing funding for countries in Latin America > do not find it useful to spend money on IETF standardisation work. > > The statistics provided by Jari Arkko measures IETF Contributions in > terms of RFC authorship. I could be a WG Secretary/Chair; that has less > "value" unless I am interested in becoming An Area Director. Not sure what you mean by "has less value"... > A > company/agency would view it useful if it derives a benefit from having > a person in that position. > > What is your opinion about the above? Not sure I understand the question. If it is "for companies/agencies, what is of more value? authoring documents or a management position?", then the answer would be "it depends on the company/agency, and varies a lot from one to another". If the question is what *I* think i of more value, then I'd say that it's similar as asking "what's of more value for a car? the sparks, the fuel, or the carburetor?". i.e., unless all parts work properly, the car doesn't work, or you get suboptimal performace, or the car eventually breaks, etc... -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Thu Dec 17 01:42:21 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 448F51A870D for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:42:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HHRD3J7BEZHA for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52711A8726 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBH9g3Bn027043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:42:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1450345332; x=1450431732; bh=myfq8TL0vdQTP3gKh4gNv17QNgQzLeFj2DLPbWrksWY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SozjRAz+mSKF49rIzHWunBEytIma0/hgDrwlcJUQmb1WFu1sDMtRTuZ80vHxp+Hzl bbHLCDNQll33LzJm4X3I9I5eESKF+KIvp64pAOIM40bmnGWUiHerwAzSezq8jexO6H 3fBtm8Nx/H5X9gPspHFF/af02xrKlecgIOxrHVFw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1450345332; x=1450431732; i=@resistor.net; bh=myfq8TL0vdQTP3gKh4gNv17QNgQzLeFj2DLPbWrksWY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=p23JyLrKJuLaZUPinhx+sPjpX3b4o/5BgD3Byy+EejrNABZvwldlsLgRVwEJomDgY 0bG+4Ho3k2Vrk9e8qLh7pK6acrslNoQSDVqk/NoCCV/TkItLrUg+IbMzGyxL4v4D8S OIN87fO15xm83wmoIGCKK5/O8cQUZDSENZY6gP8Q= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151216223819.0ec9ca08@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:19:33 -0800 To: Fernando Gont , Vinayak Hegde , Alejandro Acosta , diversity@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <56724E07.2090800@si6networks.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net> <56724E07.2090800@si6networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 17 Dec 2015 09:42:20 -0000 Hi Fernando, Vinayak, Alejandro, At 21:54 16-12-2015, Fernando Gont wrote: >Not sure what you mean by "has less value"... From the blog article: "The 2013 NomCom appointed 3 women to the IESG and 1 to the IAB. The 2014 NomCom added one more woman to each of those leadership groups as well, matching (at least for the IESG) a prior high point of 4/15 women in the IESG." The issue which led to the diversity debate was not about the number of women who were WG Secretaries or WG Chairs. It was about the number of women who are appointed to the IESG. I'll use myself as an example. In terms of diversity, and assuming that I am considered as part of a minority group, it does not make much of a difference if I am WG Secretary or WG Chair as it is the Area Director position which is viewed as important. >Not sure I understand the question. > >If it is "for companies/agencies, what is of more value? authoring >documents or a management position?", then the answer would be "it >depends on the company/agency, and varies a lot from one to another". > >If the question is what *I* think i of more value, then I'd say that >it's similar as asking "what's of more value for a car? the sparks, the >fuel, or the carburetor?". i.e., unless all parts work properly, the car >doesn't work, or you get suboptimal performace, or the car eventually >breaks, etc... I'll use an RFC as an example as it is clearer than the above analogy. The author of the RFC is in Latin America. The person works for Huawei Technologies. In my opinion, the company found it useful [1] to spend money on that IETF standardisation work. The company might also find it useful to spend money to fund an Area Director as "ADs are also entitled to select and directly manage the working group chairs" [1]. Here's another example [2]: "As executive director, she will also spearhead efforts to streamline and broaden communication with groups ...". In a message [3] on this thread, there was the following comment: "FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries." In my opinion, the above means that it is not possible to get money from research programs in Latin America to do standardisation work. In another message [4], there was the following comment about funding: "Harder to come by in developing countries but I have seen this changing slowly but surely. ISOC and other local organizations are doing a good job here. I can see the efforts of these helping." In my opinion, that means that it is not useful to change what is being done for people in developing countries as there are already organizations doing a good job. Regards, -sm 1. http://pr.huawei.com/en/news/hw-071873-ad-iab-ietf.htm 2. http://www.polycom.com/company/news/press-releases/2012/20120312.html 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00695.html 4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00716.html From nobody Fri Dec 18 08:17:26 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 330141B36EF for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:17:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, 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 VtW7AAs-KsX6 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:17:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) (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 72F281B36E3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:17:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c96so36813781qgd.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:17:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=s1h5rHXrt83FWjMm5B0C03vQVeF0IGrpHdxPxH/lmzU=; b=yd77R6MVKHmIhZNggSSXNidUmRGHWw2bVNVJV4NvMNh4s/UTpTAw/xOj8L3CxaayBy rQxX7F1vhO4qVK2Kf6kIUZ4YInlA3OODKmBEmpaHC5xUfn2s0VARBzI0AWVxgk2No4zs g3NeYMGRI9YlcbAxMuIUoanSW8NPVfk6wyghXHUtGan66ElWQNJ609EP0odFyio0kjc6 AIGlMypMgsMIn7rM6qQ3GFQ47ZAkCRvP753OGZNDFo/dw9C3qZQEQ60YjmT1WVgjWNBE j1CYOsu/PDaYwer96Z2Jla71ImJK9tbHlyVCaVC/I1uiQi1srm/mpeWeO00//7D4PtaY dGuA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.96.230 with SMTP id k93mr6105417qge.13.1450455434675; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.22 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:17:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <2A5EB469-C8DA-427E-98DF-8B198DE27FE7@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:17:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a4aa0f24b7e05272e7881 Archived-At: Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , SM , Jari Arkko , Vinayak Hegde , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:17:18 -0000 --001a113a4aa0f24b7e05272e7881 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kathleen, Your suggestion is important but I think the most important issue is that the new participant is engaged into the WG to do any help. S/he may not like to be secretary but best is to be engaged into WG with what he or she likes to do. Ietf will benefit when all are happy to work. AB On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Just one question inline to get your thoughts. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont > wrote: > >>> On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > >>> > >>>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the > >>>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that > >>>> have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. > >>> > >>> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles > >>> availability to both participate in general and being a leadership > >>> member. > >> > >> My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. h= as > >> not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* t= he > >> meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than > >> someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or > >> that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years? > >> > >> It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias. > > > > To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (number > > of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally > > agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent). > > However the number of meetings is a below average metric to measure > > contribution. Perhaps some kind of score can be used with a threshold. > > another way is to check the number of citations of the RFCs and drafts > > (similar to the h-index in Jari's Authorstats tool) > > > >>> I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that = are > >>> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has > >>> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included > >>> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don=E2=80=99t know = how to > >>> replicate that more globally. Ideas? > >> > >> FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. > > > > +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where > > funding is available. > > > >>> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should > >>> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that > >>> happens, I=E2=80=99d like to see a situation where people are who exp= erts in > >>> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get > >>> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for. > >>> > >>> But again, I don=E2=80=99t have many ideas on how to change this, and= I=E2=80=99m > >>> open to suggestions=E2=80=A6 > >> > >> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experience= d > >> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs > >> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. > >> > >> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a > >> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. > >> > >> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different > >> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all > folks. > > > > I have a couple of gripes against > > 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. > > Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to > > conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) > > What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option > before becoming a chair? > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > > > 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are > > fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if > > the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people > > Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case. > > > > Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem > > space is more niche. > > > > -- Vinayak > > > > _______________________________________________ > > diversity mailing list > > diversity@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity > --001a113a4aa0f24b7e05272e7881 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kathleen,

Your suggestion is important but I think th= e most important issue is that the new participant is engaged into the WG t= o do any help. S/he may =C2=A0not like to be secretary but best is to be en= gaged into WG with what he or she likes to do. Ietf will benefit when all a= re happy to work.

AB

On Tuesday, Dec= ember 15, 2015, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Just one question inline to get your thoughts.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde <vinay= akh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based o= n the
>>>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings.=C2= =A0 Does that
>>>> have an effect the IESG selection?=C2=A0 I don't know.=
>>>
>>> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles
>>> availability to both participate in general and being a leader= ship
>>> member.
>>
>> My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.= g. has
>> not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attendin= g* the
>> meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than=
>> someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years= or
>> that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years?
>>
>> It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" = bias.
>
> To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (numb= er
> of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally<= br> > agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent).
> However the number of meetings is a below average metric to measure > contribution. Perhaps some kind of score can be used with a threshold.=
> another way is to check the number of citations of the RFCs and drafts=
> (similar to the h-index in Jari's Authorstats tool)
>
>>> I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencie= s that are
>>> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them = has
>>> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often i= ncluded
>>> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don=E2=80=99= t know how to
>>> replicate that more globally. Ideas?
>>
>> FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. >
> +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where > funding is available.
>
>>> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF= should
>>> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice wh= en that
>>> happens, I=E2=80=99d like to see a situation where people are = who experts in
>>> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity an= d get
>>> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for.
>>>
>>> But again, I don=E2=80=99t have many ideas on how to change th= is, and I=E2=80=99m
>>> open to suggestions=E2=80=A6
>>
>> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experi= enced
>> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh= " chairs
>> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them.
>>
>> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as = a
>> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs.
>>
>> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over di= fferent
>> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for = all folks.
>
> I have a couple of gripes against
> 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. > Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to
> conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts)

What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option bef= ore becoming a chair?

Thanks,
Kathleen
>
> 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are=
> fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if<= br> > the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people
> Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case.
>
> Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem<= br> > space is more niche.
>
> -- Vinayak
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity

_______________________________________________
diversity mailing list
diversity@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
--001a113a4aa0f24b7e05272e7881-- From nobody Mon Dec 21 09:14:18 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 B816E1B2E3F for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 vrry8j5FqrEj for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 9D5A51B2E39 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [181.165.125.191] (helo=[192.168.3.107]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a8ZB1-0007SZ-AC; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:52:55 +0100 To: Vinayak Hegde References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <566F1E2A.7010007@gont.com.ar> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:53:14 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:14:18 -0800 Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 14 Dec 2015 19:53:20 -0000 Hi, Vinayak, On 12/14/2015 03:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: >> On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> >>>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the >>>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings. Does that >>>> have an effect the IESG selection? I don't know. >>> >>> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles >>> availability to both participate in general and being a leadership >>> member. >> >> My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. has >> not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* the >> meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than >> someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or >> that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years? >> >> It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias. > > To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (number > of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally > agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent). How does attending a meeting, by itself, result in a contribution? Someone could sit at a meeting and do email, or, for instance, use earphones and listen to music. Comments on the mike, posts to mailing-lists, published I-Ds, and published RFCs seem to be better indications than simply "attending a meeting". >>> I’m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that are >>> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has >>> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included >>> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don’t know how to >>> replicate that more globally. Ideas? >> >> FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries. > > +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where > funding is available. FWIW, in developing countries its *both* funding and awareness. > >>> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should >>> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that >>> happens, I’d like to see a situation where people are who experts in >>> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get >>> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for. >>> >>> But again, I don’t have many ideas on how to change this, and I’m >>> open to suggestions… >> >> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced >> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs >> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them. >> >> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a >> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs. >> >> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different >> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all folks. > > I have a couple of gripes against > 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change. I think that's where the AD kicks in. > Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to > conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts) Not sure what you mean. > 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are > fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if > the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people > Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case. Well, you could also argue that * most wgs have nowadays at least two chairs.. so that's already the case. The only difference here is that the chairs would always change. * If you don't aim at diversity and open participation as described, then you're fomenting the problem: many folks may feel that they are excluded from IETF management etc., so they don't care to get involved in procedural issues. > Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem > space is more niche. If it is actually an issue, then you can always fall back to th current situation. However, I really doubt this is actually the case for most WGs. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 From nobody Mon Dec 21 09:14:20 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 B00A71A87A6 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:39:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 1UJrCtQ9HoNU for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (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 25F1A1A8725 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.hotelramada.com ([181.198.69.235] helo=[192.168.7.52]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1a9dSQ-0005qE-N8; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:39:19 +0100 References: <5672FF29.9030306@gont.com.ar> To: "diversity@ietf.org" From: Fernando Gont X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5672FF29.9030306@gont.com.ar> Message-ID: <567301A0.7070700@gont.com.ar> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:40:32 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5672FF29.9030306@gont.com.ar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:14:18 -0800 Subject: [Diversity] Diversity (or lack of) (Fwd: Re: Argentina with tourist visa ?) 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, 17 Dec 2015 18:39:24 -0000 For folks aiming at diversity, the some of the discussions on the general mailing list might be "interesting". -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Argentina with tourist visa ? Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:30:01 -0300 From: Fernando Gont To: Jari Arkko , Fernando Gont CC: ietf@ietf.org Jari, Yes -- the unreasonable part was the opening comment of flagging a country as "strange and odd", without having visited such country in the first place, and in a context where the IETF is supposedly aiming at diversity. Thanks, Fernando On 12/17/2015 03:01 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Fernando, Toerless, > > As Lou noted, it is a reasonable request to ask for the information. > We will try to get that (more officially). > > Jari > -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 From nobody Mon Dec 21 09:47:38 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 EAD021A90FC for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:47:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 rvG-5dN_n_nH for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:47:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0583C1A90AC for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5BDBEB3; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:47:32 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uSeqdlGLgSnm; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:47:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.95] (unknown [86.46.22.208]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4788BEAA; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:47:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1450720051; bh=kOmbVk/653G0NHve66KAICA4xcmF7u+KyPGhRjgrXdw=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=C4jeJsiH0iV9YOSvcOvQc4FWVcT1hKb6Buv5CVidqt52+nH14cvjrq1Mbb8uLG7IW x/h9/wpAe9x4bKzAXXUE/PUWanXpQxf+kVvE1g2SUZSExhQGVlOFmjmoO+jYt91/b5 w2wUBeBK1fm7Amdb8lw3JUw77WYv5KfZ1wIlRCAU= To: Fernando Gont , Vinayak Hegde References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <566F1E2A.7010007@gont.com.ar> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <56783B32.4030506@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:47:30 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <566F1E2A.7010007@gont.com.ar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 21 Dec 2015 17:47:37 -0000 On 14/12/15 19:53, Fernando Gont wrote: > >> > Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem >> > space is more niche. > If it is actually an issue, then you can always fall back to th current > situation. However, I really doubt this is actually the case for most WGs. Finding qualified chairs with the time and interest and availability is a non-trivial task. Having the wrong folks chairing can muck up the work of a wg. "Wrong" can mean too inactive, or not respected by other participants or simply people who make the wrong calls. It would not IMO be practical to have a general practice of regular rotation of chairs. S. From nobody Mon Dec 21 19:00:55 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 BDC2A1AD34D for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:00:54 -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 jkC_asQaHxEs for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CE231AD34E for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k189so145099180qkc.0 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:00:53 -0800 (PST) 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=WcH/E8kEDKiaU0OE3F16dlX+oONd5TWHUTYIFysy/gg=; b=iDc8fDbqK6mRlt/mkMXZv9xtX4g+Shr7AorKJuMnSTV/JrxWa3UUUZ98W9o5SGZN/i 7fgZaTs2i5cavNbp33+7M+IO9x/8O9jxs2wnGe8MVtzFKkeb43vvqVzxVqUCbRd4d0Uj v0x+5+cS/PK+Ct6T6SUnKCq9RMW187Mi0yv69SlcGKR82VyvHcKSOsQ6dQjStKax6xRr ol99CXSFrFQ+06reDTwc5qhhEwhf3LgfN4+3lVkF71U0Rh8TxvgzYSd5GtGdXpExLb1y 7ggR69rIMgQebjKTvTmqtCng73DccmyhL1Gx9cukxBjcqFby0OfnqgUkEM7mRIo82FZO TvZg== X-Received: by 10.55.204.211 with SMTP id n80mr29447994qkl.36.1450753252290; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:00:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.1.204] ([65.200.157.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d129sm15393422qka.31.2015.12.21.19.00.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:00:50 -0800 (PST) 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 (12H143) In-Reply-To: <56783B32.4030506@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:00:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <15F9F88E-E7CC-48AF-B0C4-D528F9E79BEE@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20151213131747.0ee10a18@resistor.net> <566F0566.1060504@si6networks.com> <566F1E2A.7010007@gont.com.ar> <56783B32.4030506@cs.tcd.ie> To: Stephen Farrell Archived-At: Cc: SM , Jari Arkko , Fernando Gont , Vinayak Hegde , "diversity@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update 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, 22 Dec 2015 03:00:54 -0000 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Stephen Farrell w= rote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 14/12/15 19:53, Fernando Gont wrote: >>=20 >>>> Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem >>>> space is more niche. >> If it is actually an issue, then you can always fall back to th current >> situation. However, I really doubt this is actually the case for most WGs= . >=20 > Finding qualified chairs with the time and interest > and availability is a non-trivial task. Having the > wrong folks chairing can muck up the work of a wg. > "Wrong" can mean too inactive, or not respected by > other participants or simply people who make the > wrong calls. It would not IMO be practical to have > a general practice of regular rotation of chairs. I agree with Stephen's points. This was part of why I thought having WG sec= retaries to train and test out folks might help and would provide additional= opportunities for movement into leadership roles. Maybe we can experiment w= ith that a bit more. Best regards, Kathleen=20 >=20 > S. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity