Subject: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:58:44 -0800

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: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 07:59:12 -0500

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 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.

Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 5, 2015, at 8:58 PM, SM <[email-masked]> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 02:51:51 -0800

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: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:02:04 +0200

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 <[email-masked]> 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
> 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
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:08:21 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
>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: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:54:01 -0430

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:
>> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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
> 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.
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:22:52 -0800

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: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 20:35:22 -0500

Hi Dave,

> 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?

> give a useful sense of what is going on without disclosing private

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.

> 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.

> 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.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 22:17:56 -0800

Hi Alejandro,
>   Maybe we should try some sort of outreach few weeks before and after a

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: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:40:02 +0200

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’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.

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.

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.

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

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:24:07 -0430

Hi SM,
  Nice to tell you hello. Inline:

El 12/12/2015 a las 1:47 AM, SM escribió:
> 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.

> 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,

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:44:18 -0800

Hi Alejandro,

It's nice to hear from you. :-)

>new WG generally speaking have young people (again, AFAIK), that is -not

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.

>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: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:40:00 -0500

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 12, 2015, at 12:44 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alejandro,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:50:52 -0800

Hi Jari,
>at some numbers as well (and have more in the works; stay tuned).

Yes.

>from the point of view leadership selections or the organisation as a whole.

Yes.

>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
>highlighting and discussing the issue by you all. Thank you! I'm very

Ok.

>broader diversity. Work remains! This is why I'm particularly
>industry, research, and participants, but if there's one thing
>I'd wish for my holiday season is news that we'll have
>that too is just one example. And I'd also look for

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.

>"pipeline" - focusing on recruiting more new and

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.

>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: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:11:28 -0500

Hi, SM.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 13, 2015, at 7:50 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jari,
> 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 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

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.

Regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:24:45 -0800

On 12/14/2015 4:11 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> 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/

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:42:28 -0500

Hi Dave,

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

You mentioned 3 times you were aware of the ombudsman not working well.  I'm not briefed on these things.

> behavior and you are ignoring the rather serious problem caused by it's

I don't have access to this record.

> 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 making assumptions that my responses should be on your draft, rather than a summary of efforts I was a part of and helped chair.  A report was long overdue.  Most on this list are also concerned with diversity and how to improve it.

If you have suggestions from your work that are constructive and helpful, that could be a very good thing to move the needle forward.

> In other words, you have sought to move attention away from behaviors to

No, I responded to questions asked and wrote a blog from my own work.  
> In that effort, you have rather casually dismissed concerns about

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 move on from it.  I also noted in response to you examples from my own efforts and that my WGs generally have good conduct.

> 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 to your work.
> Demographics is a much more pleasant topic than abuse.

It's somewhat related to create an inclusive environment.  If you could contribute lessons learned and next steps for improvement rather than just staying on the problem side, perhaps we could make even more progress. 

Thank you,
Kathleen

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:17:38 +0200

Dave, obviously both are important.

With regards to providing a report from ombudsteam activities, I have personally
no objection to that. But I’ll 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’m in the
process of setting up the team and the associated training, operating
practices, etc.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:10:33 +0200

> 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’s reasonable, but one feature
that it has is that work we do has have some real-world
relationship, and that’s 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’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?

> 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’s a separate issue of bringing in new participations. And a yet separate

> 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…

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…

> 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 s…

Thanks for the link. I’ll 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’d say if you have ideas about new Gen-ART members, let me know and we’ll 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

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:57:15 -0800

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: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:27:55 -0800

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.

>RFC-to-be-draft-farrresnickel

[snip]

>    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: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:10:02 +0530

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: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:36:36 +0530

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

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:07:34 -0300

Jari,

On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> 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.
> 

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: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:27:43 -0500

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:27 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes, I'd prefer to focus on next steps and how we can improve.
> In my opinion, the discussion between Kathleen and Dave highlights the difficulties of trust.  My question is as follows:
> 

I'm not part of that team.  I don't have the training.

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:26:36 +0530

> 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)

> 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.

> 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)

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: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:41:46 -0800

Hi Jari,

Ok.

>or at least not some that could be combined with participation

I agree that it is the toughest of the 
issues.  If we could step back in time we would 
see that there could have been funding to tackle 
that issue.  However, the funding was re-purposed for political purposes.

Another way to look at "convinced their funding 
agencies" is that those funding agencies do not 
believe that the IETF is relevant.  I'll 
elaborate; the IETF may be perceived as some 
distant organization that does not bring anything 
of significance to that funding agency.  Adding 
to that, I'd say that the real-world relationship 
might be one between the IETF and the United 
States Government only.  That raises the question 
of whether the IETF is a national organization of 
whether it is an international organization.  :-)

>I don’t know how to replicate that more globally. Ideas?

The first idea I can think of is not to solve 
this issue.  That does not prevent the IETF from 
publishing statistics to highlight the 
issue.  The other idea I can think of is to hold 
all members of the IAB, IESG and IAOC (excluding 
you :-)) accountable for not having the capacity 
to come forward with suggestions about this issue.

Yes.

> > 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.
>
>But again, I don’t have many ideas on how to 
>change this, and I’m open to suggestions…

Let me turn this around a little.  What you would 
be doing with the "pipeline" is to fast-track a 
person so that he or she can gather experience at 
a faster pace.  My guess is that you would have 
to set targets.  For the situation which you 
mentioned above, you could try some sort of pairing.

>The current Gen-ART reviewers have at least one 
>third, maybe more non-native English speakers. 
>I’d say if you have ideas about new Gen-ART 
>members, let me know and we’ll 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.

I haven't been keeping track of non-native 
English speakers in the IETF lately; that might 
explain why I am able to suggest anyone as a 
Gen-ART member.  I intentionally included place 
of residence in my suggestion as it is a way to 
inject culture [1] instead of language into the 
mix.  It indirectly increases diversity.

Regards,
-sm

1. the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:56:38 -0430

> 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,

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:47:55 -0300

Hola, Ale,

> 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 ;-),

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:00:48 -0800

Hi Kathleen,
>I'm not part of that team.  I don't have the training.

Thanks for the answer.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:09:09 -0500

Just one question inline to get your thoughts.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

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

Thanks,
Kathleen

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:30:50 -0300

> 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,

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:03:40 -0430

Hola Fer,

> 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.

> did join and got to contribute.

Good idea!

> they think that could be done at the IETF to help them contribute more.

+1

> with them before action one could probably more easily build an action plan.

Yes, bad analogy :-)

Thanks,

Alejandro,

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:16:27 -0430

> 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 t…

I like this idea...... +1

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:31:01 -0800

Hi Alejandro,
>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: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:21 +0530

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi, Vinayak,
>
> On 12/14/2015 03:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
> 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.

> FWIW, in developing countries its *both* funding and awareness.

+1 Again in agreement.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:43:06 +0530

> 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: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:51:51 -0800

Hi Kathleen,
>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: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:10:59 -0430

Hi SM,

> Could you please share the names of the persons who have been trying

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,

Alejandro,

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:44:12 -0800

Hi Alejandro,
>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: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:42:11 -0300

On 12/15/2015 04:31 AM, SM wrote:
> 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
<http://www.gont.com.ar/talks/LACNIC/presentacion-lacnic-x-fgont-seguridad-tcp.pdf>).
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,

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:08:58 +0000

> 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.

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 positions) may have undesired consequences. If "secretaries" were selected in 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 (respectively) from among the pool of people who are known to them, without any open call for volunteers. At least this has been my experience. 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 kinder and gentler entry into the world of IETF involvement.

My vote would be to continue to allow note-taking to be filled by volunteers on a session-by-session basis.
Barbara

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:52:08 +0000

Hi,

+1 on continuing to allow note-taking to be filled by volunteers on a session-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 selected - 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 result of active contributions. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: diversity [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of STARK,
> BARBARA H
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:09 PM
> To: Kathleen Moriarty; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update
> 
> 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
> positions) may have undesired consequences. If "secretaries" were selected
> in 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
> (respectively) from among the pool of people who are known to them,
> without any open call for volunteers. At least this has been my experience.
> 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 kinder
> and gentler entry into the world of IETF involvement.
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:45:11 -0800

Hi Fernando, Vinayak, Alejandro,
>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: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:07:04 +0530

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:15 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.
>

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: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:54:15 -0300

On 12/15/2015 12:45 PM, SM wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

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...

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:19:33 -0800

>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.

>doesn't work, or you get suboptimal performace, or the car eventually

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: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:17:14 +0200

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 <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:53:14 -0300

Hi, Vinayak,

Not sure what you mean.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:47:30 +0000

> 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: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:00:49 -0500

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

I agree with Stephen's points.  This was part of why I thought having WG secretaries to train and test out folks might help and would provide additional opportunities for movement into leadership roles.  Maybe we can experiment with that a bit more.

Best regards,
Kathleen