Subject: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:13:41 -0700

Following a number of the threads on diversity and, in particular, on
whether the effort to get a better demographic view of participation will
lead to quotas, I have been increasingly uncomfortable with some of the
arguments which appear to have some presumptions about how diversity and
meritocracy relate.

To describe the issue, I'd like to start with a different situation and
then draw a parallel.  The different situation I'd like to use is a startup
company experiencing growth.  In my experience, startups that succeed tend
to have a very strong core group that comes together early on; they tackle
the hard work and develop a great degree of understanding of and trust in
each others' capabilities.  As the company grows, it's very common for that
core group to continue to rely on each other whenever a difficult problem
arrives.  That can manifest in those folks moving up to be the top of a
hierarchy and individually handling delegation; it can also manifest itself
in severe bottlenecks as the individuals remain critical resources to solve
an increasingly large number of problems.

In both cases, it's common for the individuals to pull in their own
networks of trusted folks as support.  Another way of expressing this is
that a particular human network is the basis of an enterprise, and the
scaling of that human network tends to work by each one of the humans
pulling in additional folks from their personal networks whose skills are
personally known to them.   The result of that is that the start-up *is* a
meritocracy as it grows (because the individuals are chosen based on their
abilities), but its diversity is initially limited to that of the personal
networks of those who end up in critical positions.  As the company grows
and recruiting becomes more formalized, the overall make-up may become more
diverse, but key positions may remain less diverse as the human networks
remain in place or are renewed.  Note that the scope of this diversity may
have nothing to do with race or gender, but may instead be about schools,
disciplines, or ages. (When it's schools, we even get to reuse the phrase "old
boy network"   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_boy_network>in its
original sense).

In the IETF, things are slightly different, in that attendance and
participation are completely open (there's no hiring gate), but many of the
same human networks are in play.  As a working group chair, when I stare
out at a sea of faces looking for a scribe, the chances of my asking
someone I know produces good minutes is much higher than my asking someone
whose work I don't know.  But that also translates into the pool of
candidates being *only those people I know*, because that's the only pool
whose merits I have assessed.  In other words, even though I'm selecting on
merit (good note takers), the way in which merit is determined (personal
knowledge) results in my not using the whole pool.

If there were an objective measure I could use instead, the WG's pool of
potential scribes would go up and the allocation likely would be fairer--if
I could say: "please tell me which potential minute taker (with a score of
70 or above) was tapped for the work least recently" and then tap that
individual, things get better for those who are otherwise tapped too
often.  Note again that the increased diversity in that pool may have
nothing to do with race or gender or even age, but it might instead be in
technical interest area (since I came from APPs into RAI, my background is
focused in certain areas).

The individual impact of my limited human networks may be small (I hope so,
anyway); in the best case, the limitations of mine would be overcome by the
scope of my co-chairs' and  ADs'.  But it can easily be a self-reinforcing
instead; if all the chairs come from the same backgrounds, they may know
and trust the same people.  Those people likely are being selected for
merit--but not from the total available pool.

As folks worry about quotas and its impact on quality, I think we must
recognize that the effort to promote based on merit alone is subject to the
limits by which merits are assessed.  The more human those are, the higher
the likelihood that network limitations or cognitive bias will have an
impact on our best use of the volunteers we have or could attack.

So, given this very human problem, what can we do?  Suresh and I happened
to be at a different SDO meeting yesterday, and we sat down briefly and
discussed this.  Two things emerged as possible concrete actions from that
brainstorming, but they both boil down to this:  institutionalize methods
for getting technical input from newcomers/less well-known participants, so
that technical input can be basis of assessments.  In other words, give
those outside the human networks an institutional method for being part of
the technical community. That should align with chairs' chronic need to
find technical energy to assess and complete work.

The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".  After an individual
starts participating in the IETF, either by attending a meeting or joining
a mailing list, offer them the opportunity to become part of a review
team.  That review team would have templates (as does AppsDir, the GenArt
team, and others) and example reviews to guide the new participant.  The
newcomers would be assigned last call reviews that would then be sent to
the relevant working group chairs and ADs for review.  Those who produced
good work would then be known to others relatively quickly.  At the end of
their "newcomer" period they might transition to a relevant directorate
based in an Area.

The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last
call or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants
from the mailing list, and then asks for a review or commentary.  So 5
folks off the mailing list are directly asked for their opinion, without
regard to preconceived notions of the chairs about who would be a good
reviewer.  If someone declines, the tool would select a new random person
to fill out.  The working group as a whole thus gets a chance to understand
someone's technical viewpoint, without that person having to fit within one
of the established human networks.

There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and I
discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may
help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this
need not be quotas.  It should be a better environment for all of our
volunteers.

best regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:26:30 +0200

I like your analysis.  A comment while I am still "warm"

>
> The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".
>
> (snip)
>
> The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last call
> or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants from the
> mailing list, and then asks for a review or commentary.  So 5 folks off the
> mailing list are directly asked for their opinion, without regard to
> preconceived notions of the chairs about who would be a good reviewer.  If
> someone declines, the tool would select a new random person to fill out.
> The working group as a whole thus gets a chance to understand someone's
> technical viewpoint, without that person having to fit within one of the
> established human networks.

I like the second approach since it seems simpler to implement and it
does not involve a new human "structure."  Since we believe in running
code, we could try the second approach and see how it works.  We
should fix the setup in advance (duration, metrics, ...), but you
already know that. It seems to me that it would require just a handful
of line of codes and little more.

I would also suggest that with the second approach the selected
reviewer could have been given a chance to say "no," because sometime
you could not have the time to do that.  Of course, if someone says
"no" too often, that already is a hint... ;-)

Regards,

Riccardo

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:38:37 +0200

Hi Ted,

interesting points indeed. I don't really know whether or not the approach you propose might work in practice, though.
My personal experience in the IETF is that it is really hard to gain some 'popularity' among the members of this variegated gallery of characters, especially if you don't have any official sponsorship from one of the big Internet companies. In case you were able to earn some credibility with a couple of on-the-field successes, you would not be treated as a newcomer anymore, but nonetheless as an outsider, a sort of strange entity wandering around meeting corridors and looked at with some curiosity by the usual gang of famous IETFfers. It is a matter of social attitudes. People are strange when you're a stranger...and there is really little you can do about that.

Cheers,

Simon

Il giorno 19/apr/2013, alle ore 20:13, Ted Hardie ha scritto:

> Following a number of the threads on diversity and, in particular, on whether the effort to get a better demographic view of participation will lead to quotas, I have been increasingly uncomfortable with some of the arguments which appear to have some presumptions about how diversity and meritocracy relate.
> 
> To describe the issue, I'd like to start with a different situation and then draw a parallel.  The different situation I'd like to use is a startup company experiencing growth.  In my experience, startups that succeed tend to have a very strong core group that comes together early on; they tackle the hard work and develop a great degree of understanding of and trust in each others' capabilities.  As the company grows, it's very common for that core group to continue to rely on each other whenever a difficult problem arrives.  That can manifest in those folks moving up to be the top of a hierarchy and individually handling delegation; it can also manifest itself in severe bottlenecks as the individuals remain critical resources to solve an increasingly large number of problems.  
> 
> In both cases, it's common for the individuals to pull in their own networks of trusted folks as support.  Another way of expressing this is that a particular human network is the basis of an enterprise, and the scaling of that human network tends to work by each one of the humans pulling in additional folks from their personal networks whose skills are personally known to them.   The result of that is that the start-up *is* a meritocracy as it grows (because the individuals are chosen based on their abilities), but its diversity is initially limited to that of the personal networks of those who end up in critical positions.  As the company grows and recruiting becomes more formalized, the overall make-up may become more diverse, but key positions may remain less diverse as the human networks remain in place or are renewed.  Note that the scope of this diversity may have nothing to do with race or gender, but may instead be about schools, disciplines, or ages. (When it's schools, we even get to reuse the phrase "old boy network"   in its original sense).
> 
> In the IETF, things are slightly different, in that attendance and participation are completely open (there's no hiring gate), but many of the same human networks are in play.  As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking for a scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good minutes is much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know.  But that also translates into the pool of candidates being *only those people I know*, because that's the only pool whose merits I have assessed.  In other words, even though I'm selecting on merit (good note takers), the way in which merit is determined (personal knowledge) results in my not using the whole pool. 
> 
> If there were an objective measure I could use instead, the WG's pool of potential scribes would go up and the allocation likely would be fairer--if I could say: "please tell me which potential minute taker (with a score of 70 or above) was tapped for the work least recently" and then tap that individual, things get better for those who are otherwise tapped too often.  Note again that the increased diversity in that pool may have nothing to do with race or gender or even age, but it might instead be in technical interest area (since I came from APPs into RAI, my background is focused in certain areas).  
> 
> The individual impact of my limited human networks may be small (I hope so, anyway); in the best case, the limitations of mine would be overcome by the scope of my co-chairs' and  ADs'.  But it can easily be a self-reinforcing instead; if all the chairs come from the same backgrounds, they may know and trust the same people.  Those people likely are being selected for merit--but not from the total available pool.
> 
> As folks worry about quotas and its impact on quality, I think we must recognize that the effort to promote based on merit alone is subject to the limits by which merits are assessed.  The more human those are, the higher the likelihood that network limitations or cognitive bias will have an impact on our best use of the volunteers we have or could attack. 
> 
> So, given this very human problem, what can we do?  Suresh and I happened to be at a different SDO meeting yesterday, and we sat down briefly and discussed this.  Two things emerged as possible concrete actions from that brainstorming, but they both boil down to this:  institutionalize methods for getting technical input from newcomers/less well-known participants, so that technical input can be basis of assessments.  In other words, give those outside the human networks an institutional method for being part of the technical community. That should align with chairs' chronic need to find technical energy to assess and complete work.
> 
> The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".  After an individual starts participating in the IETF, either by attending a meeting or joining a mailing list, offer them the opportunity to become part of a review team.  That review team would have templates (as does AppsDir, the GenArt team, and others) and example reviews to guide the new participant.  The newcomers would be assigned last call reviews that would then be sent to the relevant working group chairs and ADs for review.  Those who produced good work would then be known to others relatively quickly.  At the end of their "newcomer" period they might transition to a relevant directorate based in an Area.
> 
> The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last call or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants from the mailing list, and then asks for a review or commentary.  So 5 folks off the mailing list are directly asked for their opinion, without regard to preconceived notions of the chairs about who would be a good reviewer.  If someone declines, the tool would select a new random person to fill out.  The working group as a whole thus gets a chance to understand someone's technical viewpoint, without that person having to fit within one of the established human networks.
> 
> There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and I discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this need not be quotas.  It should be a better environment for all of our volunteers.
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie

                     					       _\\|//_
                           				      ( O-O )
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    				Simon Pietro Romano
             				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                		     Computer Engineering Department 
	             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: [email-masked]

		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli 
		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
               			                     oooO
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
					                 \ (            (   )
			                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:47:00 +0100

Nice post.

I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the
draft, rather than review it in isolation.

It'd be a different kind of review, which adds value for us, I think, and
would instantiate new human subnets which could be used to bootstrap other
involvement.

This is, I stress, merely a quick reaction to your much more thoughtful
post, and I reserve the right to backtrack and change my mind.

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:14:07 +0200

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:
> select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the draft,
> rather than review it in isolation.
>

Another "quick reaction" or "warm comment:"

Yes, it is a different type of review and maybe not everyone is suited
for that type of interaction.  I speak by personal experience: during
meeting (especially with many people) usually I prefer to listen,
think about the issues and maybe expressing my ideas in a follow-up or
the at next meeting.  I know, I am not a team player (rather, I am a
lonely wolf :-) but it is me and I know that I am not the only one.
I  feel more comfortable in a less interactive setting: reading the
document, taking my time to ponder about it, hunting for holes, etc.
Then, maybe, I can be in a meeting where we express our opinion about
the doc.

Maybe we could have both types of "forced interaction," so you could
see who is more suited for "live meeting" and who for "non-interactive
review."

Riccardo

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:29:00 -0700

Hi Simon,

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> interesting points indeed. I don't really know whether or not the approach
> you propose might work in practice,

There is certainly a risk there, but I hope we can find ways of increasing
the institutional support for opportunities for the less-well-connected
(newcomer or not) to contribute to the technical work. That may not result
immediately in deep social connection, but it should result in better
visibility.  That can help along the longer road.  There are, after all,
many chairs who are constantly looking for new participants and energy, and
adding this tool may help match that to the skills of volunteers they don't
know.

regards,

Ted Hardie

> though.
> My personal experience in the IETF is that it is really hard to gain some
> 'popularity' among the members of this variegated gallery of characters,
> especially if you don't have any official sponsorship from one of the big
> Internet companies. In case you were able to earn some credibility with a
> couple of on-the-field successes, you would not be treated as a newcomer
> anymore, but nonetheless as an outsider, a sort of strange entity wandering
> around meeting corridors and looked at with some curiosity by the usual
> gang of famous IETFfers. It is a matter of social attitudes. People are
> strange when you're a stranger...and there is really little you can do
> about that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
>
> disciplines, or ages. (When it's schools, we even get to reuse the phrase
> "old boy network"   in its original sense).
> >
> individual, things get better for those who are otherwise tapped too often.
>  Note again that the increased diversity in that pool may have nothing to
> do with race or gender or even age, but it might instead be in technical
> interest area (since I came from APPs into RAI, my background is focused in
> certain areas).
> >
> > The individual impact of my limited human networks may be small (I hope
> so, anyway); in the best case, the limitations of mine would be overcome by
> the scope of my co-chairs' and  ADs'.  But it can easily be a
> self-reinforcing instead; if all the chairs come from the same backgrounds,
> they may know and trust the same people.  Those people likely are being
> selected for merit--but not from the total available pool.
> >
> > So, given this very human problem, what can we do?  Suresh and I
> happened to be at a different SDO meeting yesterday, and we sat down
> briefly and discussed this.  Two things emerged as possible concrete
> actions from that brainstorming, but they both boil down to this:
>  institutionalize methods for getting technical input from newcomers/less
> well-known participants, so that technical input can be basis of
> assessments.  In other words, give those outside the human networks an
> institutional method for being part of the technical community. That should
> align with chairs' chronic need to find technical energy to assess and
> complete work.
> >
> a mailing list, offer them the opportunity to become part of a review team.
>  That review team would have templates (as does AppsDir, the GenArt team,
> and others) and example reviews to guide the new participant.  The
> > There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and
> I discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that
> may help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of
> this need not be quotas.  It should be a better environment for all of our
> volunteers.
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Ted Hardie
>
>                                                                _\\|//_
>                                                               ( O-O )
>                                                          \ (            (
>   )

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:31:29 -0700

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think that would be a useful additional approach (maybe have those
randomly selected meet online before starting the reviews).  I do want to
be sensitive, though, to the language barriers to some extent.  I used to
recommend that folks interested in participating in a working group start
by being a scribe; I realized eventually how hard that was for some
participants whose native language was not English.  It's still useful for
those for whom real-time capture of rapidly moving discussion is feasible,
but we need something that allows folks time to reflect as well.

Just my 2 cents,

regards,

TEd

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:32:55 -0700

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Riccardo Bernardini
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> call
I believe Suresh is going to propose working on it at the next code sprint,
if there is enough support.  If you are interested in contributing to that,
I'm sure he'd welcome it.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:30:58 +0000

On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
 wrote:

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Nice post.

I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the draft, rather than review it in isolation.

It'd be a different kind of review, which adds value for us, I think, and would instantiate new human subnets which could be used to bootstrap other involvement.

I think that would be a useful additional approach (maybe have those randomly selected meet online before starting the reviews).  I do want to be sensitive, though, to the language barriers to some extent.  I used to recommend that folks interested in participating in a working group start by being a scribe; I realized eventually how hard that was for some participants whose native language was not English.  It's still useful for those for whom real-time capture of rapidly moving discussion is feasible, but we need something that allows folks time to reflect as well.

I tried that a while back. I found that it's really hard for a newbie to scribe. First, you have people running to the mike, and no idea who they are. I tried to position myself just in front of the mike so I could see the name tags, but that worked less than half of the times (there was another mike at the back). People saying their names helps very little, because it's very hard to catch even for English speakers. Add some different accent, and it becomes hopeless.

As chair, I try to pick the ones I know are familiar with those likely to come to the mike. Otherwise you end up with notes saying things like "someone at the mic says …"

Yoav

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:32:53 +0300

Ted: Very nice post and good ideas. Thanks.

Jari

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400

On 4/19/2013 2:13 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
 > ...

I call this improving the Electronic diversity of the IETF.  It has 
communications tools but it needs more.  There is work is in progress 
(MeetEcho and so on), but it still needs more.  The IETF does not have a 
copyright on this problem. Every organizations has to improve its 
communications methods.

Short list of ideas:

  - Better Marketing, Website "Sales."

  - Focus on its products, standards, Publications of ideas, methods
    in a formal format, old and new technology reviews, Global Reviews,
    even legal topics, etc.

  - Online Forums to resolve the device independent issue
    - with continued Offline communications avenues.
    - Device independent Participation.

  - Memberships!!! Get that "Professional Feel" of getting a
    membership "badge", great for resumes,
    - Different levels,
    - Give folks their own @IETF.ORG email address!

  - Offer "Co-op" projects (as opposed to jobs) for students (newcomers),
    - Management of projects,
    - Documentation experience,
    - Programmers for the developers of protocols,
    - Testers,
    - etc.

There is much more that can be done, but we are still holding on to a 
version of the past that is keeping the IETF behind.   We all fall in 
that trap of adhering to safe, conservative, comfortable and for the 
most part, working practices. I know I (my company) did and we are still 
trying to get out of that hole.  In this way, its not a Start Up Plan 
that is needed.  It would a Restructuring Plan.  The IETF is not start 
up because it can't afford or has the leverage to start new things 
without harming others. In this way, it is currently Pareto Efficient 
because it does consider all things diverse.  However, I believe we need 
to improve the Electronic Diversity by blending in the new things to the 
existing methods.  I hope these discussions regarding diversity is not 
just about increasing IETF meetings attendance.

Lastly, I think we need to remember that there are many folks who are 
not in this to be managers, leaders, RFC writers, or even "complete 
Reviewers" but just implementators and followers, including CTOs who 
would like nothing better but to get better abstracts and executive 
summaries from the flow of I-Ds submitted.  They put their trust on 
their peers more involved with IETF to do the "best" engineering job and 
certainly not a result that will hurt them.  This is where the IETF/IESG 
experiences is still and always vital, whatever is done, the IETF can 
not make her end products have a lesser quality.  Its a tough task, but 
one that can be managed with improved Electronic Diversity.

--
HLS

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:21:10 -0800

On 4/20/13 6:12 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> version of the past that is keeping the IETF behind. 

Behind what?

Melinda

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:03:04 -0500

> post, and I reserve the right to backtrack and change my mind.

I'm replying to Dave's note, but read further through the thread.

I'm not seeing the randomly-invite-to-review and 
randomly-invite-to-discuss being mutually exclusive. If I'm reading the 
mail threads on newcomer assimilation correctly, what we're hoping for 
is to identify people who we might not always identify, who can and will 
produce good work. The additional random selection gives people who we 
might not have identified a chance to show whether they can and will 
produce good work.

I note that one of these possibilities places more emphasis on spoken 
English than the other. That's important to keep in mind. Maybe letting 
people self-select for the kind of review is helpful.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:50:27 -0400

Excellent post, Ted.  I really like your suggestions, and I think these are the types of things we should be doing to more widely leverage the talents of people who are available to participate in the IETF. 

Margaret

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:04:38 +0100

On 19/04/2013 19:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
> As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking 
> for a scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good 
> minutes is much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know. 
Think about how this often works in WGs without a
secretary or regular scribe.

Chair says we need a volunteer for a scribe.

Everyone looks away and sits on their hands.

Chair says no scribe, no meeting.

Everyone looks away and hangs their head even lower melting into the floor.

Chair pleads a bit more.

Silence.

Chair asks someone they know since they are less likely to refuse.

There maybe a refusal or two by people who expect to be at the
mic a lot, or need to leave early, or are only there to catch up
with their email.

Eventually someone committed to the WG, and usually well known to the
chairs, frequently a name called by the chair, offers to scribe in order
to the meeting started.

The strong temptation is to just ask one of the well known good
scribes before the meeting in order not to waste time in a tight agenda.

Stewart

---

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:04:40 -0400

Being a scribe can be a good way for people to know who you are (the scribe).  From reading the thread on this, when you ask someone who is new, how about having them sit next to someone who is more familiar with the attendees to help with names?   Maybe for those which English is not a first language, they could monitor the jabber list for questions.  They may be more comfortable with certain aspects of volunteering during a session or reading drafts on their own time.

It would be good to get the message out to newcomers that volunteering is important.  You help others and they help you, it is basic networking skills and does work in the IETF.

Thanks,
Kathleen

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 6:05 AM
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know

On 19/04/2013 19:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking for a scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good minutes is much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know.
Think about how this often works in WGs without a
secretary or regular scribe.

Chair pleads a bit more.

Silence.

Stewart

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:59:41 +0200

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Being a scribe can be a good way for people to know who you are (the
> scribe).  From reading the thread on this, when you ask someone who is new,
> how about having them sit next to someone who is more familiar with the
> attendees to help with names?   Maybe for those which English is not a first
> language, they could monitor the jabber list for questions.  They may be
> more comfortable with certain aspects of volunteering during a session or
> reading drafts on their own time.
>
>
>
> It would be good to get the message out to newcomers that volunteering is
> important.  You help others and they help you, it is basic networking skills
> and does work in the IETF.
>

I support this.  Maybe some encouragement from the chair could help
the newcomers in winning their natural "shyness."  I talk by personal
experience here: maybe my shyness is a bit above average, but I think
that when it is your first time in a new environment, it is only
natural to be a little afraid of doing something wrong, even in
something like IETF that I, as newcomer, found quite "welcoming."
Adding the "pseudo-mentor" to the scribe could also help and maybe
also having two newcomer-scribes in parallel, so that each one knows
that if s/he misses something or gets something wrong, the redundant
scribe can be used to recover from the error.

> As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking for a
> scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good minutes is
> much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know.
>