Subject: Re: Is the IETF aging?

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:43:58 -0400

--On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 19:07 -0800 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 5/1/12 5:55 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> What would be good patterns for those roles?
> 
> I don't know what John has in mind but it strikes me that every
> so often we get a wave of new participants (as new topics
> and/or
> work areas are introduced) and it seems to me that it would be
> valuable if people who've been through the process a time or
> three could help mentor people who are new to the IETF but have
> drafts that have been adopted.  Presumably they can help with
> process and culture issues, as well.

That is pretty much what I had in mind ... mostly one on one. I
also think that there is a similar role for/with, e.g.,
newly-minted WG Chairs and document editors with the "advisor"
concentrating at least as much on helping on teaching/ showing
someone the ropes as on providing technical advice or oversight
to the WG itself.  

This has some dangers, or at least issues, that I think we need
to keep in mind.  

First, Paul Hoffman is exactly right.  To elaborate on the way I
understood his comment, the IETF community has a tendency to
turn good informal ideas into detailed structures and
requirements.  For example, we have evolved "BOF" from
"AD-approved informal discussion of potential work items" into a
highly-structured near-requirement for WG formation with
specific roles, combined IESG and IAB reviews, guidelines for
success in RFCs, and so on.  We almost certainly do not need to
have WGs with two Co-chairs, a Secretary, a few Editors, a
Responsible AD, a Technical Advisor, and designated Watchers/
Mentors for each person in the first three of those categories.
Too much formalism, too top-heavy, and possibly another barrier
to WG creation (of which, IMO, we already have too many).

I'd rather see this kept a little more informal or maybe a lot
more informal.  An AD should definitely be able to move someone
into a Chair or Co-chair position with designated support, but
it is at least as important that people who have been around for
a while be able to spot potential new talent and offer advice
and coaching in an informal environment.

I do have two major concerns with the way in which the
discussion has evolved.  First, vocabulary affects how we think
or at least how others assume we think.  "Greybeard" is a nasty
example of that because, no matter how much experience women
have in the IETF, few of them will sport beards or any color
and, at the risk of a silly example, expecting them to don such
garb on a regular basis is unreasonable.  So, unless we want to
send the message that all of the senior members of the community
are necessarily male (and inclined to grow beards), we need to
find another term.  

At the same time, while I'm all in favor of members of
particular communities drawing together to share experiences and
ways of coping with "the system", moves toward talking about the
IETF context in terms of "gender diversity" (or any other type
of "diversity") strike me as risky for the community.  If the
IETF were doing more user interface work, there would be a
really strong argument for making sure the IETF, or at least the
relevant WGs, were diverse enough to reflect the broader
community.   But I don't think that anyone has made a convincing
case that there is anything inherently "male" (or "northern", or
"white", or...) about TCP, IP, or much of anything else in the
IETF's sub-UI work.  Until and unless that case is made, I think
we need to be absolutely sure that capable and promising women
have at least as much opportunity to make useful contributions
in the IETF --including taking on leadership roles-- as capable
and promising men.  But, even a step or two in the direction of
promoting or preferring less-able women in order to make IETF
bodies more diverse would be likely to result in shooting
ourselves in our collective feet.

Let me also make a suggestion that I hope is constructive: the
newcomers meet-and-greet may be really helpful in giving the new
people a chance to meet some of those they should be working
with.   It would work better if a larger fraction of the
leadership sought out newcomers to talk with rather than
treating it as a pre-welcome-reception opportunity to talk with
each other, but I don't know how it fix that.   However those
newcomer sessions don't --I suggest can't-- work for forming
mentoring relationships for two reasons.  First, the people who
should be most available for mentoring are those with
significant IETF experience who do not have present WG Chair,
IESG, or IAB responsibilities.  But those people are excluded
from the newcomers meet and greet sessions.  Second, it is just
too early, especially since we, as a community, have little
control over who will be back the second and third time and the
second and third year.  So I suggest we think about how to put
together 2nd-comer or 3rd-comer opportunities with potential
(and committed) mentors available and other attendance limited
to self-selected relatively new people (but normally not
first-timers) who are interested in that kind of experience and
support.

    john

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:01:36 -0700

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

"But, even a step or two in the direction of promoting or preferring
less-able women in order to make IETF  bodies more diverse would be
likely to result in shooting ourselves in our collective feet."

I think the analysis here is subtly wrong.  If you have two candidates
who can clearly do the job, it seems to imply that you should always
still stack rank them and pick the higher ranked.  But that's a very
local optimization.

Efforts to increase to diversity are a very different optimization--by
making more visible that opportunities are present for all, these
initiatives attempt to increase the pool of talent over time.  If
people who would previously have left a field stay or folks who had
not thought of entering a field do so, that field wins.  The scale of
that win can be the field of  "Science, Technology, Engineering, Math"
or it can be "working group leadership" or "the IETF".  But a bigger
pool of talent to draw from is a big win for almost any sized field.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 14:29:32 -0400

--On Friday, May 04, 2012 11:01 -0700 Ted Hardie
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "But, even a step or two in the direction of promoting or
> preferring less-able women in order to make IETF  bodies more
> diverse would be likely to result in shooting ourselves in our
> collective feet."
 
> I think the analysis here is subtly wrong.  If you have two
> candidates who can clearly do the job, it seems to imply that
> you should always still stack rank them and pick the higher
> ranked.  But that's a very local optimization.
> 
> Efforts to increase to diversity are a very different
> optimization--by making more visible that opportunities are
> present for all, these initiatives attempt to increase the
> pool of talent over time.  If people who would previously have
> left a field stay or folks who had not thought of entering a
> field do so, that field wins.  The scale of that win can be
> the field of  "Science, Technology, Engineering, Math" or it
> can be "working group leadership" or "the IETF".  But a bigger

Ted,

I completely agree with that way of looking at things.  I was
reacting to something else --not a choice between "two
candidates who can clearly do the job" but to models that easily
can (and in some demonstrable cases in communities close to
ours, clearly have) shifted past that and into scoring systems
in which so much weight is given to diversity (by some measure)
that significantly less-qualified people --people who would be
unlikely to do as good a job or even an adequate one-- are
chosen in preference to more qualified ones who do not satisfy
the diversity criteria.  

I don't think the IETF wants to go there.  I'm reluctant to get
into name-calling by identifying examples of organizations
on-list that interact with the IETF that have gone down that
path, but will do so in private if needed.

   john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:08:28 -0700

Hi John,
>are necessarily male (and inclined to grow beards), we need to

The term SIR was proposed instead of male and knighted.

>and promising men.  But, even a step or two in the direction of

There hasn't been any response to the gender note sent to another 
IETF mailing list a few days ago.  It's one thing to provide 
opportunities for women; making it happen is another story.  If you 
or anyone else know anyone who is interested, I'll contribute.

>each other, but I don't know how it fix that.   However those

It has an air of formality.  It's a constructive step though.

Currently, there's a two hour session for newcomers with around 65 
slides.  It's a lot of content, a lot of acronyms and a lot of rules 
and sub-rules.  There's also a two hour session about how to create 
I-D at the same time.  The newcomer has to choose between learning 
about the IETF or learning how to create I-Ds.  They then go into a 
room full of strange people where it is a miss and hit affair like 
Internet dating.

>first-timers) who are interested in that kind of experience and

The 2nd-comer and 2rd-comer idea is interesting.  There is free time 
and free rooms on tutorial day.  How about getting a room, get people 
who are interested in there and send an informal invitation to the 
attendees?  You could even have affinity groups to avoid the old-boys 
club atmosphere.

Regards,
-sm