Subject: Re: [Diversity] Attracting people from emerging regions into the IETF

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 10:53:42 +0100

ok, I will work on another draft to provide different aim related to
diversity and regions considered by the IETF,

AB

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:47 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Abdussalam,
>
> At 11:12 30-09-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
>> The draft states some of my interests and my past advise to add regions
>> into IETF, and that many participants of other regions are having
>> difficulties to work in IETF. I think the solutions in the draft need
>> additions or recommendations to IETF managements. IMHO, the draft should
>> consider how the management/Current-Practice should form to encourage such
>> aim.
>>
>
> I volunteered for only part of one of the initiatives.  My understanding
> is that part does not include how the IETF "management should form".  The
> draft does not provide solutions.
>
>
> At 11:26 30-09-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
>> I like the goal, but it is not clear, the document is it procedure or
>> informational, it seems like information or recommendation, but why not
>> providing clear recommendations as one objective.
>>
>
> The draft makes suggestions.  I don't know the answer for the above.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 01:28:55 -0700

Hi Suresh,
At 22:31 30-09-2013, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>One meta issue: I would also like the draft to include people from
>"developed" regions who would not ordinarily have the means to attend an
>IETF meeting. These folks are usually left out from the outreach
>programs and would be worth evaluating as well.

The first sentence of the draft says:

   "The IETF Chair set up a Diversity Design Team in July, 2013 to
    determine how to address issues such as geographic diversity."

The draft then mentions "emerging regions".  The programme lists 
"emerging and developing economies into the IETF" as the target and 
the draft mentions "emerging regions" in "expectations of the 
IETF".  I can remove the "geographic diversity" from the Introduction 
Section.   The only issue is what to have in the text about 
"expectations of the IETF".  Initiative 1 (a) mentions "from 
under-represented groups".  My quick reaction would be to list the 
meta issue as an open issue in the draft and ask you to take up the 
issue with the IETF Community.

Note that I did ask for feedback about the "means to attend an IETF 
meeting" instead of ignoring the problem ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82742.html ).

>Section 2:
>
>Split into two sections/subsections: One describing the current
>program(s) and the other describing the issues. I like Dave's idea to
>point to the original programs as well.

I have that in my working copy.

>Consider adding the ANRP here as one of the current programs as it is
>certainly open to participants from emerging regions

I thought about that.  My preference is to leave ANRP for Aaron as 
there's already a long term goal in the draft (see the exchange I had 
with Dave Crocker).

>Section 3:
>
>Consider removing the last criterion as I explained above.

I already commented (see above).

>Section 4:
>
>I think there should be a distinction between who nominates and who
>evaluates. My view is that the WG chairs should nominate and and an
>evaluation panel could be appointed each year (like the ANRP selection
>committee). Even though interested ADs could participate, I am not a big
>fan of adding more mandatory work to the already difficult IESG job.

In my opinion there isn't a nomination and evaluation model.  I 
suggest taking up that discussion with the IETF Community.

The text relevant to Area Directors was in response to a comment from 
an Area Director.  There are a few Area Directors reading this 
list.  They can drop me a note if that's a problem.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 03:13:50 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
>diversity and regions considered by the IETF,

That's a good initiative.  I suggest discussing the matter with 
Kathleen Moriarty and Suresh Krishnan as they may have a better view 
of the initiatives relating to diversity.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 18:36:10 +0000

Hi,

On Sep 29, 2013, at 18:25, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> In its current form, it's difficult to distinguish between factual descriptions/summaries of what is currently done, criticisms of problems with the current program or with what comes after, versus proposal(s) for new things to do.

I agree with Dave.

Can I ask what the *motivation* for the document it? Are you trying to describe what ISOC is currently doing? Are you trying to change what ISOC is currently doing? Are you trying to argue for another fellowship program that would operate differently from ISOC's with goals that would maybe - arguably - be more aligned with what the IETF wants/needs?

Once that is clear we can have a conversation about the content?

Lars

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:41:25 -0700

> Can I ask what the *motivation* for the document it? Are you trying to describe what ISOC is currently doing? Are you trying to change what ISOC is currently doing? Are you trying to argue for anot…

Merely to offer a data point that isn't generated by the draft author, 
here is my current understanding of the goal:

      1.  The ISOC current effort establishes initial, face-to-face 
contact, which is of course useful.

      2.  The larger goal needs to be the development of /on-going/ and 
/active/ participation by such individuals.

      3.  This requires a broader effort to include these folk, covering 
participation via mailing lists, as well as remote meeting attendance).

      4.  It probably also requires some continuing physical attendance 
assistance for individuals who have attended previously.

If the above is not entirely off the mark, please treat it as draft 
text, to be massaged into acceptability.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 19:11:34 +0000

Hi,

On Oct 1, 2013, at 20:41, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Merely to offer a data point that isn't generated by the draft author, here is my current understanding of the goal:
> 
>     1.  The ISOC current effort establishes initial, face-to-face contact, which is of course useful.

Yes. But my impression is that ISOC is focusing on bringing folks to the IETF who may become allies on the political layer - regulators, state-run telco people, government officials, etc. 

And they're bringing them more in an effort to educate them about how the IETF works, that it's equal, and open, and easy to participate in, and that the IETF folks know their technology than with the goal that the fellows themselves will actually begin to do standards work and continue participation on their on money.

At least that's my impression. And if that's somewhat accurate, there's nothing wrong with that. I hope it pays off for ISOC on the political layer, where they're fighting the good fight.

But in terms of increasing IETF participation by engineers wanting to help build the Internet, the ISOC program may not be very effective. And that's fine, because it wasn't designed to be.

The point I'm trying to make is that the motivations for bringing in new participants matter. ISOC has one motivation, we (the IETF) may have another, I (with my IRTF chair hat one) certainly have yet another.

>     2.  The larger goal needs to be the development of /on-going/ and /active/ participation by such individuals.

Yes, if the intent is to bring in engineers to help build the net. Maybe not so much if the focus is on educating decision makers, as ISOC tries at least partially.

>     3.  This requires a broader effort to include these folk, covering participation via mailing lists, as well as remote meeting attendance).

Yep.

>     4.  It probably also requires some continuing physical attendance assistance for individuals who have attended previously.

Yep. But, it's a slippery slope. The pool of money is limited (and it's ISOC's pool.) There are many good motivations for paying for someone to attend. Once money is handed out we better have exceedingly clear explanation why we say yes to some people and no to some others.

Lars

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:16:45 -0700

On 10/1/2013 12:11 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> Merely to offer a data point that isn't generated by the draft
>> author, here is my current understanding of the goal:
>>
> Yes. But my impression is that ISOC is focusing on bringing folks to
> the IETF who may become allies on the political layer - regulators,
> state-run telco people, government officials, etc.

That's not the Fellows program, as I understand it.  What you are
describing is, I believe, a separate effort.

> But in terms of increasing IETF participation by engineers wanting to
> help build the Internet, the ISOC program may not be very effective.
> And that's fine, because it wasn't designed to be.

Well, my own sense of SM's draft is that it essentially says "the 
current ISOC effort is a good start, but more needs to be done, to 
achieve the goal of ongoing, active participation by folk from 
under-represented areas.

> Yep. But, it's a slippery slope. The pool of money is limited (and
> it's ISOC's pool.) There are many good motivations for paying for
> someone to attend. Once money is handed out we better have
> exceedingly clear explanation why we say yes to some people and no to
> some others.

In effect, I'm seeing SM's document as a "gap analysis" of the issue, 
where proposals for solution are secondary to getting agreement on the 
nature of the need.

d/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:02:39 -0700

Hi Lars,
>state-run telco people, government officials, etc.

The draft does not discuss about that part.

>And they're bringing them more in an effort to educate them about 
>how the IETF works, that it's equal, and open, and easy to 
>participate in, and that the IETF folks know their technology than 
>with the goal that the fellows themselves will actually begin to do 
>standards work and continue participation on their on money.

Is the above related to the political layer (see above) or is it 
related to the ISOC Fellowship programme as described at 
http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-ois-programmes/internet-society-fellowship 
?

>exceedingly clear explanation why we say yes to some people and no 
>to some others.

In my opinion the above is similar to the comments from Dave Crocker, 
Stephen Farrell and Adrian Farrel.

At 11:36 01-10-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>Can I ask what the *motivation* for the document it? Are you trying 
>to describe what ISOC is currently doing? Are you trying to change 
>what ISOC is currently doing? Are you trying to argue for another 
>fellowship program that would operate differently from ISOC's with 
>goals that would maybe - arguably - be more aligned with what the 
>IETF wants/needs?

As I mentioned previously, and quoting text from the draft:

Section 2 of the (new) draft describes the objective of the programme.

As background about the effort, I volunteered for the "ISOC 
fellowship" part which is one of the initiatives identified by the 
Diversity Design Team.  I quote part of a message posted to this mailing list:

   "I note that you said you hadn't seen any tickets come through yet,
    and I wonder if that is because people have not noticed the existence
    of the wiki (that applies to me) or feel reticent about proposing
    that they take on some of the work."

I did notice the wiki.  My preference was to leave it to other 
persons to make their first choice.  As nobody volunteered I chose 
the first item for which I can try to provide an answer to 
"exceedingly clear explanation why we say yes".

I am not trying to change what ISOC is currently doing.  What I did 
was to solicit comments about "more participation from emerging and 
developing economies" ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00336.html 
).  The draft (or I) does not argue about another fellowship 
programme.  What it does is discuss about "be more aligned about what 
the IETF wants/needs"?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:53:56 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 11:41 01-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>      2.  The larger goal needs to be the development of /on-going/ 
> and /active/ participation by such individuals.
>
>      3.  This requires a broader effort to include these folk, 
> covering participation via mailing lists, as well as remote meeting 
> attendance).
>
>      4.  It probably also requires some continuing physical 
> attendance assistance for individuals who have attended previously.
>
>

I already added the above based on our previous exchange.   I am 
attaching a new version of the draft.

The changes in version -01 are:

  - Added the text Dave Crocker suggested in Section 1 as it was not clear what
    the draft was about.

  - Rearrangement of the text in Section 2 to document the existing programme

  - Added references

  - Issues section renamed to Expectations of the IETF

  - Changes to the guidance in response to comments from Vinayak Hegde
    and Alejandro Acosta.

  - Added comments from Suresh as an open issue.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Steve Conte <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:18:17 +0000

This has been a very interesting thread and I¹m certainly tracking this
discussion.  I¹d like to say +1 to many comments that have been made,
specifically by Lars, Vinayak, and Adiel.

One of the goals of the ISOC Fellowship to the IETF programme is to
increase IETF participation in emerging and developing economies, and thus
it contributes to increasing diversity within the IETF.  ISOC also has and
supports other activities surrounding the increase of awareness and
participation in the IETF.  The fellowship is just one component.

I would like to better understand how the implementation and operation of
this ISOC-driven programme speaks to the larger challenge question of
increasing diversity at IETF.

The diversity discussion at IETF is much broader than just bringing
engineers from developing and emerging economies.  Given that, the
fellowship can contribute to addressing one aspect of the diversity
challenge.

One of the expectations of the fellowship programme is that the
participant bring back the work and importance of the IETF and share it
with their broader community.  Whether it is individuals becoming directly
involved in the IETF process, a university professor changing their
curriculum in order to introduce the open standards development process to
their students, or an ISOC chapter holding a local workshop on how to get
involved, each has its own definition of ³success² as well as
³participation².

However, at the end, the fellowship programme is just a component.
Although we do have the support and participation (both as selection
committee members as well as mentors) of some of the IETF community, it
remains an external programme with its own set of goals and motivations.

Steve

-----
Steve Conte
Internet Leadership Programme
The Internet Society
[email-masked]

On 10/1/13 12:11 PM, "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Yes. But my impression is that ISOC is focusing on bringing folks to the
>IETF who may become allies on the political layer - regulators, state-run
>telco people, government officials, etc.
>
>And they're bringing them more in an effort to educate them about how the
>IETF works, that it's equal, and open, and easy to participate in, and
>that the IETF folks know their technology than with the goal that the
>fellows themselves will actually begin to do standards work and continue
>participation on their on money.
>
>At least that's my impression. And if that's somewhat accurate, there's
>nothing wrong with that. I hope it pays off for ISOC on the political
>layer, where they're fighting the good fight.
>
>help build the Internet, the ISOC program may not be very effective. And
>that's fine, because it wasn't designed to be.
>
>The point I'm trying to make is that the motivations for bringing in new
>participants matter. ISOC has one motivation, we (the IETF) may have
>another, I (with my IRTF chair hat one) certainly have yet another.
>
>Yes, if the intent is to bring in engineers to help build the net. Maybe
>not so much if the focus is on educating decision makers, as ISOC tries
>at least partially.
>
>Yep. But, it's a slippery slope. The pool of money is limited (and it's
>ISOC's pool.) There are many good motivations for paying for someone to
>attend. Once money is handed out we better have exceedingly clear
>explanation why we say yes to some people and no to some others.
>
>Lars

---

From: Adiel Akplogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 01:47:31 +0400

Hello SM,

On 2013-09-30, at 20:55 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> At 03:19 30-09-2013, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>> This is a an interesting document. Thanks for working on it. Here are few contributions and comments:
>> 
>> 1. I will suggest that that the draft goes beyond ISOC fellowship program and set a framework for any existing of future program that aim at improving participation and contribution from emerging economies. In addition, I see two distinct goals: One being to attract people, and the other one to make their participation sustainable/effective. Reading the draft I have the impression that it mainly addresses the latest aspect which is "sustaining participation from emerging countries". Maybe a different draft will be needed to address more effectively the "attracting" aspect.
> 
> I agree with the suggestion to have a document that sets a framework for any existing or future programs that aim at improving participation and contribution from emerging economies.  It would require a lot of effort and the collaboration of several organisations to draw up a framework which is workable.

I'm not sure, as I see in the current draft many valid principles and requirements that can be applied to any other program that will have the objective to make supported participation from emerging economy sustainable/effective.
 
> I highlight the comment about goals:
> 
>  (i)  one being to attract people
> 
>  (ii) make their participation sustainable/effective
> 
> The draft tries to address (ii), i.e. make the participation from emerging countries effective and sustainable.

Then you may want to change the title of the Draft, because the current title is about attracting.

>  The first goal (i) is one which could be covered through outreach.  I left out the outreach part from the draft.  

Ok.

> I have some very rough ideas for (i).  In my opinion it is unlikely that they would bring any results without money and even then I am not sure whether the results will be considered as significant.

Then maybe open a different thread for that aspect which is critical for this diversity team.
 
>> 2. Will it not be be more accurate to use "countries", "markets" or "economies" instead of region? In my view it could be hard/subjective to define an homogeneous geographic region as an emerging one.
> 
> Yes (to the last sentence).
> 
> The term "emerging regions" is used in the IETF.  I could not find a better one for the draft.  Although "countries", "markets" or "economies" are more accurate they might not fit into goal (ii) or end up causing a disincentive to IETF Contributions.

I'm not sure I'm following your here. Can you elaborate why it will not fit in to the goal of making participation effective? 

Also if the IETF use "emerging region" maybe that will need to be revisited as well to align with the reality and contribute to deliver a clear message.

>> 3. When talking about "attracting" people I think the critical aspect is to make the participation appealing to them, meaning nurturing their interest for Open standard in general and IETF work in
>> particular. So, in the document while I believe that some of the issues are well identified, the
>> proposed solutions are incomplete and lack a deeper analysis of the reason behind the issues. For
>> instance when you set as requirement that candidate must have to participate to IETF work for 6 at least months, I doubt this can happen naturally if there is no incentive and hand holding to get them to that stage. One real issue we have to circumvent here is the fact that there is no (not
> 
> I have reached out to the IETF Community to request feedback.  In my humble opinion a deeper analysis takes the work beyond what is achievable as a volunteer effort.

I believe that IETF volunteers have already worked and addressed more complex issue than that :-). Is it that this is less important? 

>> yet) vibrant innovation industry in these economies which  could nurture engineers/technologists interest for standards in general and Open Standards in this particular context. So we need to find a sustainable way to create the interest first (which can be part of any fellowship process) and find probable interested people where they are (universities/technology school, innovation hubs that are flourishing all over emerging countries, http://www.ihub.co.ke/blog/2013/05/comparative-study-on-innovation-hubs-across-africa/, Mobile Operators [R&D department] who are taking over the Internet market in emerging market etc ..)  through an effective communication. That is a critical
>> aspect of attracting people! Engineers and technologists from emerging markets face so much day to day basic challenges in doing their work that asking them to naturally spare time to read and contribute to lists where hundreds of mails are send in an hour with cross references to other hundreds of document is hard. Fellowship to roughly 30 people every year should not be the only direction too look at, the issue have to be addressed holistically so to have an effective result.
> 
> Some of the above might fit in the framework suggested at the beginning of the message or as part of outreach.  There was another thread on the mailing list where it was mentioned that some of the work done at universities do not fit within the IETF.

Some, but not all. And if we want to create the interest we may need to start raising awareness within the Engineering/Technology student community. It won't be mainly about the work done at University but about raising the awareness on Open standard and how "easy" it is to contribute to / influence it.

> I agree that engineers from emerging markets face so much day to day basic challenges and that asking them to spare time to reach the mailing lists is hard.  It has been mentioned that the IETF does its work through its mailing list.  I personally do not think that it would be a good idea to suggest changing that without the support of the IETF Community.

I'm not suggesting to change the way the IETF works, but helping people out there to understand why it is important to spear time to following online discussions. Simply said, give them factual argument so to raise that in their day to day priorities.

- a.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 17:15:14 -0700

Hi Adiel,
At 14:47 01-10-2013, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>I'm not sure, as I see in the current draft many valid principles 
>and requirements that can be applied to any other program that will 
>have the objective to make supported participation from emerging 
>economy sustainable/effective.

Ok.

>current title is about attracting.

I commented about the "attracting" in my exchange with Dave Crocker as follows:

   Maybe "attracting" is not the correct word here. I would say that the draft
   "attempts to address the challenge of attracting people from 
emerging regions".

>Then maybe open a different thread for that aspect which is critical 

I cannot comment on behalf on the diversity team.  I'll leave this to 
Kathleen Moriarty and Suresh Krishnan.

>I'm not sure I'm following your here. Can you elaborate why it will 
>not fit in to the goal of making participation effective?
>
>Also if the IETF use "emerging region" maybe that will need to be 
>revisited as well to align with the reality and contribute to 
>deliver a clear message.

  (i)  Person A is from Country B.  The person can be said to have actively
       participated in IETF activities for more than six months.

  (ii) Person C is from Country D.  The person has not actively participated
       in IETF activities for more than six months.

Person C (ii) is selected and Person A (i) is not selected.  It can 
be a disincentive to Person A and that person might find better 
things to do instead of volunteering for IETF work.  In my personal 
opinion it can have a negative impact on IETF work.

I leave it to the IETF Community to clarify what "emerging regions" means.

>I believe that IETF volunteers have already worked and addressed 
>more complex issue than that :-).

I prefer simple issues. :-)

>  Is it that this is less important?

In my personal opinion a work is less important when there aren't 
enough IETF participants who can do the work.

>Some, but not all. And if we want to create the interest we may need 
>to start raising awareness within the Engineering/Technology student 
>community. It won't be mainly about the work done at University but 
>about raising the awareness on Open standard and how "easy" it is to 
>contribute to / influence it.

I have personally tried the awareness within the student 
community.  It was not a work-related effort.  It did not generate 
significant interest to deliver results.

I actually tell people that it is difficult to contribute.  I found 
people who agree to contribute in spite of what I said.  Oddly 
enough, some of these people are from emerging regions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Colleen Louw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:50:06 -0400

Thank you SM for preparing this draft, it spun up a couple of questions for
me - pardon me if these has been covered elsewhere:

- Meetings of the IETF from what I can see off the main page have never
taken place in Africa, South America or India, which constitute large areas
of what we consider emerging economies/markets etc. I'm new to this
organization so I don't know the history of why that is, but looking at it
from the vantage point of wanting increase diversity, it doesn't send a
good message of inclusiveness.

- This draft raises a point which I understand as relating to fellows and
not to the broader point of diversity but it is something of note in the
general sense: being proficient in English. I'm pretty sure we've touched
on language elsewhere on this list but in saying this, we are also making
fluency with what may be a second language to an otherwise great
contributor a barrier to entry

Cheers

Colleen

On 1 October 2013 20:15, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I'm not sure, as I see in the current draft many valid principles and
>> requirements that can be applied to any other program that will have the
>> objective to make supported participation from emerging economy
>> sustainable/effective.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>   "attempts to address the challenge of attracting people from emerging
> regions".
>
>
>  I'm not sure I'm following your here. Can you elaborate why it will not
>> fit in to the goal of making participation effective?
>>
>> revisited as well to align with the reality and contribute to deliver a
>> clear message.
>>
>
> Person C (ii) is selected and Person A (i) is not selected.  It can be a
> disincentive to Person A and that person might find better things to do
> instead of volunteering for IETF work.  In my personal opinion it can have
> a negative impact on IETF work.
>
>  I believe that IETF volunteers have already worked and addressed more
>> complex issue than that :-).
>>
>
> In my personal opinion a work is less important when there aren't enough
> IETF participants who can do the work.
>
>
>  Some, but not all. And if we want to create the interest we may need to
>> start raising awareness within the Engineering/Technology student
>> community. It won't be mainly about the work done at University but about
>> raising the awareness on Open standard and how "easy" it is to contribute
>> to / influence it.
>>
>
> I have personally tried the awareness within the student community.  It
> was not a work-related effort.  It did not generate significant interest to
> deliver results.
>
> I actually tell people that it is difficult to contribute.  I found people
> who agree to contribute in spite of what I said.  Oddly enough, some of
> these people are from emerging regions.
>
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> ______________________________**_________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/diversity<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 22:57:40 -0700

Hi Colleen,
At 18:50 01-10-2013, Colleen Louw wrote:
>- Meetings of the IETF from what I can see off the main page have 
>never taken place in Africa, South America or India, which 
>constitute large areas of what we consider emerging 
>economies/markets etc. I'm new to this organization so I don't know 
>the history of why that is, but looking at it from the vantage point 
>of wanting increase diversity, it doesn't send a good message of inclusiveness.

There is a thread about a meeting in South America at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79456.html 
There is a comment about inclusiveness at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78921.html

>- This draft raises a point which I understand as relating to 
>fellows and not to the broader point of diversity but it is 
>something of note in the general sense: being proficient in English. 
>I'm pretty sure we've touched on language elsewhere on this list but 
>in saying this, we are also making fluency with what may be a second 
>language to an otherwise great contributor a barrier to entry

Section 2 of draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-02 ( 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-02 ) 
discusses about the language used in the IETF.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:39:54 +0530

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Colleen Louw <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thank you SM for preparing this draft, it spun up a couple of questions
> for me - pardon me if these has been covered elsewhere:
>

This has been discussed to death on the IETF mailing list. See the archives
of ietf mailing list 2-3 months back for individual messages. The overall
consensus was that having meetings in a region which does not have a lot of
participants is a costly affair for the others. Also it is not the best and
efficient way (money-wise) to increase participation from a region.

There are several ways to increase participation from a region:
1. Have a satellite meeting in the region that increases awareness -
    a. This could be a venue that is available for like-minded people who
can remotely participate in a WG meeting / IETF plenary. The challenge here
is getting like-minded people for a WG meeting as the IETF WG covers a
fairly large and diverse area of subjects. Another problem is the timezone
especially for Asian countries. The WG meetings in North America happen in
the middle of the night or early morning
    b. ISOC / Other interested parties can have outreach efforts for
popularizing standards. It could be a simple seminar/talk about a
particular standards and how easy it is to join the mailing lists and
contribute to it. I have done this with some limited success. ISOC has an
INET series which is also doing this.
    c. Also it is possible to do outreach events and talk about IETF work
at regional events such as *NIC or *NOG events.

SM you can also put this in the draft.

> contributor a barrier to entry
Being proficient in English is almost a must. The IETF and other
organisation do not have a budget to translate between different standards
(like the UN does) and English has become the lingua franca of the business
and technical world and the web. It is just a pragmatic decision. English
may not be your/my first language but I have become proficient sooner
rather than later.

-- Vinayak

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:25:05 -0300

> describing is, I believe, a separate effort.

    Dave is right, it is a separate program with a different goal.

    Sometimes they meet together like in dinners and some specific
presentations, however the goal of the programs and the selection
criteria are different.

Regards,
as

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:11:36 +0000

Thanks for clarifying!

I think having some information from ISOC on what programs they run in this space and what the differences/foci are would be useful.

Lars

On Oct 2, 2013, at 5:25, Arturo Servin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:35:01 -0700

> The changes in version -01 are:

SM,

> 1. Introduction
>
>    The IETF Chair set up a Diversity Design Team in July, 2013 to
>    determine how to address issues such as geographic diversity.  There

I suggest replacing "how to... diversity", by quoting Jari's text 
explicitly.  Being in sync with what he said is generally good for 
something like this, since it links this draft better to existing 
efforts and statements; plus I think his text is concise and useful:

      http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/07/a-diverse-ietf/

      "to understand the diversity problem and suggest solutions to make 
the IETF more inclusive"

>    is already an ISOC Fellowship programme to the IETF for participants
>    from emerging regions.  This document attempts to address the

Again, I suggest using ISOC's own language to describe its fellowship 
program:

      "The Fellowship to the IETF helps to increase the diversity of 
inputs to, and global awareness of the IETF’s vital work."

Then create linkage between it and what you are proposing.  Hence, 
something like:

      This document builds upon the ISOC work, proposing adjustments and 
additional efforts, with the goal of enabling more sustained and active 
participation by contributors from under-represented regions.

I suspect we'll do better to have the draft use a term like 
"under-represented sector" rather than "emerging region". The former can 
permit including deserving and promising folk from a wider range of 
places. I'm assuming that's a desirable change, but of course it's a 
policy point that needs to be explicit.

...

>
> 2. Existing support for participants from emerging regions
>
> 2.1. Objectives of the ISOC Fellowship programme

Introduce this sub-section with:

      ISOC's efforts are encompassed by a basic Fellowship Programme and 
a Returning Fellowship Programme.

>    The Internet Society has provided significant financial support given
>    that attendance by technologists from emerging and developing
>    economies is currently limited [FEL].  It is considered that actually
>    attending an event promotes a stronger understanding of the standards

      an event -> a face-to-face IETF meeting

>    process, encourages active involvement in IETF work, and facilitates

To help lay the foundation for the incremental proposal the draft is 
making...

      encourages active  -> lays the foundation for active

>    personal networking with others that have similar technical interests
>    [FEL].

...
>    The goals of the ISOC Returning fellowship programme [RET] are to:

The text at [RET] refers to attending one more meeting, rather than 
continuing attendance.  The language here ought to reflect this 
limitation, since it's quite a major point, IMO.

...

> 3. Expectations of the IETF
>
>    The objectives of the fellowship are less well aligned with the

'less well' requires some existing context about alignment, that isn't 
provided in the draft.  I suggest a change that makes the sentence 
introduce the concern:

    less well-aligned -> can be better aligned

>    expectations of the IETF as it focuses on meeting attendance by

The IETF isn't a person and doesn't have 'expectations'.

>    technologists from emerging and developing economies and awareness of
>    the IETF instead of active participation in the IETF.  Although

Replace first sentence with:

      The current ISOC Fellowship Programme is primarily useful for 
initial introductions to IETF activities and culture. However the goal 
in the IETF, itself, is for continuing and active participation, which 
goes considerably beyond introductions.  Moving from introduction to 
participation requires additional effort.

>    attending IETF meetings fosters an understanding of the work of the
>    IETF it does not ensure active participation.  Active participation
>    in the work of an IETF Working Group is listed as an advantage
>    instead of a requirement for the fellowship [SEL].
>
>    The existing selection criteria puts an emphasis on university-level
>    qualifications and the academic interests of the applicant [SEL].  It

The draft is suggesting an actual mis-match between the programme and 
IETF's operating culture.  So the draft should flag the point as being 
an issue.  "However" is a small flag. So...

    It -> However it

>    has been mentioned in discussions about academic participation that
>    the IETF filters out proposals from researchers simply because they
>    just do not fit in standardization work [DIN].
>
>    The Returning Fellowship programme is a laudable initiative by the
>    Internet Society to encourage IETF participation from emerging

The basic program already encourages participation.  So...

    to encourage -> to further encourage

>    regions.  It is unclear how the goals to integrate technologists from
>    emerging regions into the IETF or advance the technical leadership
>    potential of individuals from emerging regions are pursued.

The above, last sentence confuses me a bit.  Pursued by whom?  Perhaps 
the draft means to say something like:

    It is unclear how an ISOC Fellow can build upon the initial -- but 
limited -- experiences of the basic Programme and Returning Fellow 
Programme, to achieve the Fellow's technical leadership potential, 
through on-going, active participation in the IETF.

> 4. Suggestions
>
> 4.1. Selection criteria for the fellowship

Is this being suggested as a replacement set of criteria?  And for which 
of the two Programmes?  Again, this text needs context that links it to 
the existing activities and text.

>
>    The most effective way to contribute to the IETF is through active
>    participation and by reviewing and commenting about working group
>    drafts [FAA].  It is proposed that the applicant fulfills the
>    following criteria:
>
>       - Be proficient in English.
>
>       - Can be objectively said to have actively participated in IETF
>         activities for more than six months, and subjectively, such that
>         those contributions are considered useful.

Replace with:

      Has been actively and constructively participating in the IETF for
      at least six months.

>
>
>                          Expires April 4, 2014                  [Page 3]
> 
> S. Moonesamy               Attracting people             October 1, 2013
>
>
>         For example, reviewing drafts, commenting on IETF Last Calls,
>         writing code for drafts or taking part in interop testing are
>         fine ways to be seen to have participated. Candidates whose
>         contributions are considered more useful should be preferred
>         over those who are less useful. Judging utility for
>         contributions requires knowledge of the specific field.
>
>       - Resident of a country in an emerging region.
>
> 4.2. Evaluation panel
>
>    It is suggested to include Area Directors or Working Group Chairs on
>    the evaluation panel [FAS].  These people will bring in the expertise
>    to evaluate the reviews performed by the applicant.  They can also

To cover a wider range of activities, such as writing a draft:

      reviews performed -> contributions made

Hmmm.  The challenge here is that the Panel needs to be fairly small, 
while the range of possible applications might be large, therefore 
requiring a range of ADs or WG Chairs who have had contact with them. 
That is, the draft is seeking to have members of the Evaluation Panel be 
folk with direct experience of the applicants, but I'd expect that to 
require too many people.  So I suspect that a more efficient suggestion 
would be something like:

    - Applicants shall summarize their specific contributions to the IETF

    - Applicants shall solicit Area Directors, working group chairs, 
authors and other active IETF participants, to send supporting notes on 
their behalf to the Evaluation Panel.  These notes should comment on the 
nature and extent of contributions made by the application.

    -  The Evaluation Panel may also solicit comments from IETF 
participants who have had contact with the applicant.

>    determine whether the applicant has an understanding of the work done
>    in the IETF.  It is suggested that the evaluation panel prioritize
>    people who have been contributing over time to real IETF work.

Hmmm.  That last sentence strikes me as a major policy point, and one 
with justifications and problems in either direction.

For example, a policy like that can lead to awards going to a small, 
stagnant set of active contributors.  While the goodness of that is that 
they are useful contributors, the downside is that it doesn't bring in 
more new people.  Mumble...

>
> 4.3. Guidance for applicants
>
>    The fellowship is about people who can demonstrate commitment and can
>    collaborate with other IETF participants to perform IETF work.

That's certainly a reasonable goal for a programme like this, but it 
seems to be much more narrow than ISOC's current language suggests. 
Again, this sounds like a significant policy change.

>    Applicants can familiarize themselves with the technologies being
>    discussed by, for example, implementing the relevant specifications
>    or evaluating implementations [ACS].  Applicants can ask for advice
>    on the [email-masked] mailing list [EDU].
>
> 4.4. Effectiveness of the fellowship
>
>    The effectiveness of the fellowship can be assessed by tracking the
>    IETF activities of the fellows and doing a follow-up to find out why
>    fellows drop out.

Assessment should look for the whys and hows of both continued 
involvement as well as lack of continued involvement.

d/

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:48:06 -0400

Hi Adiel,

On 10/01/2013 05:47 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>> The draft tries to address (ii), i.e. make the participation
>> from emerging countries effective and sustainable.
> 
>> The first goal (i) is one which could be covered through 
>> outreach.  I left out the outreach part from the draft.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> I have some very rough ideas for (i).  In my opinion it is 
>> unlikely that they would bring any results without money and
>> even then I am not sure whether the results will be considered
>> as significant.
> 

Certainly. We would love to hear your thoughts on (i) along with any
ideas you might have on this topic. The diversity design team can be
reached at [email-masked]

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:16:56 -0430

>> I'm not sure, as I see in the current draft many valid principles and

{...}

>> revisited as well to align with the reality and contribute to deliver
>> a clear message.

My 2 cents: I prefer the sentence: "emerging economics". I think it's a
more accurate term.

> instead of volunteering for IETF work.  In my personal opinion it can
> have a negative impact on IETF work.
> 
> was not a work-related effort.  It did not generate significant interest
> to deliver results.
> 
> people who agree to contribute in spite of what I said.  Oddly enough,
> some of these people are from emerging regions.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

Alejandro Acosta,

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:40:02 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 09:35 02-10-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>      "to understand the diversity problem and suggest solutions to 
> make the IETF more inclusive"

Ok.

I'll include the new text below.

>Again, I suggest using ISOC's own language to describe its fellowship program:
>
> inputs to, and global awareness of the IETF's vital work."
>
>      This document builds upon the ISOC work, proposing adjustments 
> and additional efforts, with the goal of enabling more sustained 
> and active participation by contributors from under-represented regions.
>
>"under-represented sector" rather than "emerging region". The former 
>can permit including deserving and promising folk from a wider range 
>of places. I'm assuming that's a desirable change, but of course 
>it's a policy point that needs to be explicit.

I have the "wider range of places" as an open issue (Section 5).  I 
have the following text now:

    The IETF Chair set up a Diversity Design Team in July, 2013 to
    understand the diversity problem and suggest solutions to make the
    IETF more inclusive.  There is already an ISOC Fellowship programme
    to the IETF for participants from emerging regions.  The Fellowship
    to the IETF helps to increase the diversity of inputs to, and global
    awareness of the IETF's vital work.  This document builds upon the
    ISOC work, proposing adjustments and additional efforts, with the
    goal of enabling more sustained and active participation by
    contributors from an under-represented sector.

I may have to change the title of the draft to:

   Enabling more sustained and active participation by contributors from
   an under-represented sector

>      ISOC's efforts are encompassed by a basic Fellowship Programme 
> and a Returning Fellowship Programme.

I added that.

>      an event -> a face-to-face IETF meeting

That's much better.

>To help lay the foundation for the incremental proposal the draft is making...
>

Ok.  I left in the FEL reference.

>limitation, since it's quite a major point, IMO.

The limitation is one meeting per year.  I'll add the following to Section 2.2:

   "A Returning Fellowship award will not be given to the same individual twice
    in one calendar year."

>'less well' requires some existing context about alignment, that 
>isn't provided in the draft.  I suggest a change that makes the 
>sentence introduce the concern:
>

Done.

>The IETF isn't a person and doesn't have 'expectations'.

  I changed the title of Section 3.1 to "Expectations of the IETF Community"

I made some editorial changes to Section 1 because of the above two changes.

> initial introductions to IETF activities and culture. However the 
> goal in the IETF, itself, is for continuing and active 
> participation, which goes considerably beyond 
> introductions.  Moving from introduction to participation requires 
> additional effort.

Here is the entire paragraph:

   The current ISOC Fellowship Programme is primarily useful for initial
   introductions to IETF activities and culture.  However the goal in the
   IETF, itself, is for continuing and active participation, which goes
   considerably beyond introductions.  Moving from introduction to
   participation requires additional effort..  Although attending IETF
   meetings fosters an understanding of the work of the IETF it does not
   ensure active participation.  Active participation in the work of an
   IETF Working Group is listed as an advantage instead of a requirement
   for the fellowship [SEL].

>The draft is suggesting an actual mis-match between the programme 
>and IETF's operating culture.  So the draft should flag the point as 
>being an issue.  "However" is a small flag. So...
>
>    It -> However it

I added "however".

>    to encourage -> to further encourage

Ok.  I used "an under-represented sector" in that sentence.

>The above, last sentence confuses me a bit.  Pursued by 
>whom?  Perhaps the draft means to

That was rough text for the draft.

>  say something like:
>
>    It is unclear how an ISOC Fellow can build upon the initial -- 
> but limited -- experiences of the basic Programme and Returning 
> Fellow Programme, to achieve the Fellow's technical leadership 
> potential, through on-going, active participation in the IETF.

I used the above text.

>Is this being suggested as a replacement set of criteria?  And for 
>which of the two Programmes?  Again, this text needs context that 
>links it to the existing activities and text.

It is a generic criteria for both programmes.  I added "basic and 
returning" in the section title.

>      Has been actively and constructively participating in the IETF for

I made this change.

Ok.

>Hmmm.  The challenge here is that the Panel needs to be fairly 
>small, while the range of possible applications might be large, 
>therefore requiring a range of ADs or WG Chairs who have had contact 
>with them. That is, the draft is seeking to have members of the 
>Evaluation Panel be folk with direct experience of the applicants, 
>but I'd expect that to require too many people.  So I suspect that a 
>more efficient suggestion would be something like:
>
> authors and other active IETF participants, to send supporting 
> notes on their behalf to the Evaluation Panel.  These notes should 
> comment on the nature and extent of contributions made by the application.
>

Section 4.2 is avoids getting into the details of the evaluation 
panel.  In essence, the draft suggests selection criteria so that the 
person has a lesser barrier understanding the IETF.  Some of the 
above would be guidance to applicants.  I kept the guidance short to 
limit the amount of suggestions made.

>Hmmm.  That last sentence strikes me as a major policy point, and 
>one with justifications and problems in either direction.
>
>stagnant set of active contributors.  While the goodness of that is 
>that they are useful contributors, the downside is that it doesn't 
>bring in more new people.  Mumble...

Yes.  In practice a high set of active contributors cannot be 
attained within a few years.  If it does happen the IETF will be 
over-productive. :-)

>Again, this sounds like a significant policy change.

I'll remove the first sentence.

>involvement as well as lack of continued involvement.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy