Subject: Re: IETF Challenges

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 13:38:02 +0100

>> I wonder if he's basing this on the main discussion lists.  There
>> actually don't seem to be that many people from Japan and China
>> posting here on IETF-discuss, despite considerable activity from
>> those corners of the globe on individual working group mailing lists.

>Perhaps they prefer to do real work.

For me that am from Africa, I do prefer to join the WGs in IETF, but
it seems that most meeting of IETF don't come to Asia or Africa nor
provide there a conference room with the live meetings ( IETF needs to
work with Internet Society Chapters in thoes places). I think it is a
challenge to IETF's Works/I-Ds to consider real
inputs/suggestions/applications of Asia and Africa communities to the
IETF. Under the IETF role it is very easy of WG chairs to ignore
minority participants of large communities.

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 09:37:37 -0800

>minority participants of large communities.

Here is a quote from someone in Africa who was involved in other I* 
bodies (not the IETF):

   "Africa has many educated people with a great local perspective; however
    they have little global influence.  I find that it is not enough to invite
    people to forums where it is a known fact that they will not contribute
    meaningfully."

The IETF has gone to Asian countries.  Even if the IETF were to go to 
South America or Africa the above would still be relevant.  The 
individuals from the United States or Europe face the same problems 
as anyone else.  Having a meeting as a matter of national pride will 
give you national pride and nothing else.

Abdussalam, I'll ask an unfair question: How will the Internet 
Society Chapters in those places contribute meaningfully to the IETF [1]?

At 05:05 03-03-2013, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>My experience is that there is a huge difference between different 
>WGs. Some I have sent email to without response, then actually 
>emailed the WG chair and asked if the topic of my email was within 
>the WG scope, still no answer. This is an example of an WG that's 
>hard to get into, seems populated by people who mostly discuss 
>within an already established group and where nobody seems to bother 
>that someone comes in with an idea to even give them a reply that 
>their idea is not on topic or alike.

Yes.  As an anecdote I had a somewhat similar experience.  It does 
not bother me and I am not inclined to do anything about it.

>Some other WGs are populated by people who are very happy to respond 
>and discuss to anyone who comes up with something, which is very welcoming.

Yes.

>I see the IETF as a meetingplace or "market" for people to gather 
>and cooperate in. It's hard to encourage this more than what is 
>done. The barrier for entry is quite low (I have only been to a 
>single IETF meeting, the one that was in my home town Stockholm a 
>few years back), and even before that to participate in a lot of 
>WGs, it's only a matter of having access to email and time and 
>willingness to participate. I can imagine that language and culture 
>is one of the biggest barriers. For me, coming from FOSS/Fidonet 
>discussion culture, joining the IETF was not so different. For 
>others, coming from perhaps a fairly closed corporate climate or a 
>country culture where hierarchy is important, I can imagine it's 
>very different.

The above explains it nicely.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg62861.html

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:33:13 +0100

Hi SM

comments below,

>     people to forums where it is a known fact that they will not contribute

I don't beleive that, but that maybe true if we know the reasons or
background of that experience,

> Society Chapters in those places contribute meaningfully to the IETF [1]?

It will be meanigful contribution if there was advise, willing, and
guide from the IETF, but I never claim I have solutions just thoughts,
it can be another challenge answer to the question by this thread,

> not bother me and I am not inclined to do anything about it.

This is a discourage that the IETF SHOULD solve and monitor. If I was
an IETF chair I will fire thoes WG Chairs that don't respond to posts
on their WG list. Very discourage/wrong behavior of such organisation
that ignores an input or a participant.

>>and discuss to anyone who comes up with something, which is very

Thoes WGs are the stars of the IETF, which encourage and make the
challenges become innovation,

All the best
AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 22:02:33 +0100

>So basically, I can't really think of anything the IETF can do to encourage people to participate that it's not already doing. Do you have any suggestions?

I know that IETF is doing what it can do, but this thread is not about
that, it is about ietf-challenges. I suggest if possible that IETF
improves in reply/respond to all inputs from participants, that
includes all IETF WGs lists/meetings, which I recommend
monitored/managed by the IETF WG Chairs, and IETF Area ADs (just first
don't ignore, discourage, or leave others to discourage).

If you see the statistics pointed from others, there are many drafts
contributed to IETF but mostly not gone through to become RFCs, I
think they mostly were discouraged more than thinking they were not
suitable. I recommend when IETF get the draft that it tries to advise
the authors to continue, not just reply that the draft is bad, or
please don't continue that. Some authors may think IETF is not a good
place for acknowledge or encourage participants that try to
contribute,

AB

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:46:58 -0500

At 07:38 AM 3/3/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>Under the IETF role it is very easy of WG chairs to ignore

I've come to the conclusion - possibly wrong - that you're lacking some basic understanding in the operational model of the IETF.

Unlike most other standards bodies, the IETF tries to get good technical contributions from smart technical people, not based on voting status of their company or country.  If you have a good idea, it makes no difference whether you're from the US and working for a big company, or from Nigeria and working for a two person consultancy.  The dual of that is that the IETF does not attempt to level the playing field by imposing rules which gives "minority participants of large communities" (or for that matter any other participant) a voice they didn't earn with their technical contributions.

This is most specifically, a peer-reviewed community and good reviews, clear technical arguments, and a willingness to contribute to the process will lead to more people listening to you.

I *am* aware that various companies, and perhaps even some countries, have tried to change or work around that - sometimes by venue changing, sometimes by abusing the process.  But, for the most part, a good technical idea will win over a mediocre one.

So I would restate your comment along the lines as I understand them:

"It is sometimes difficult for WG chairs to ignore out-of-order, or irrelevant comments from any participant, but they need to do so to progress the work of the IETF".

Mike

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:39:10 -0500 (EST)

> From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
> 
> I've come to the conclusion - possibly wrong - that you're lacking
> some basic understanding in the operational model of the IETF.
> 
> Unlike most other standards bodies, the IETF tries to get good
> technical contributions from smart technical people, not based on
> voting status of their company or country.  If you have a good idea,
> [etc.]

Let me try to explain that point in a different way.

The model that the IETF attempts to follow -- and generally does
fairly well at following -- is to consider all participants as
*individuals* not as *representatives* (of particular companies, of
particular countries, or of particular communities).

"All may speak, but not all are listened to."  One is listened to
depending on one's reputation.  Basically, that reputation is
established by sound technical contribution.  It generally takes
around a year of useful contribution for one to gain a reputation.
However it is true that consistent attendance at IETF meetings will
improve the recognition of one's technical talents, if one has those
talents.

Occasionally a participant has attempted to enhance his influence by
declaring that his technical proposal is backed by his employer, which
is an economically powerful vendor.  Inevitably, this causes the
person to be considered to be an idiot, and his proposal is then
completely ignored.

Based on this, WG chairs find it easy to ignore -- and they are
*supposed* to place little weight on -- people whose contributions
have little technical merit, and conversely, they pay great attention
to people whose contributions consistently have technical merit.

Unfortunately, these factors mean that a smaller proportion of
respected contributors come from backgrounds or communities with lower
levels of education or less deployment of Internet technology -- there
is no mechanism, indeed, no intention, to ensure that various sectors
receive equal representation.  The IETF and the Internet Society have
tried in various ways to reduce the barriers (especially money
barriers) to participation for competent people from such backgrounds.
But if there are no competent people who can be attracted to
participate, that community will have no "representative" -- even if
that community has particular technical needs which the IETF desires
to satisfy.

In any particular instance, if one knows of some particular technical
consideration that is important for a particular community, and is
having trouble getting attention in a working group for that
consideration, it is useful to talk privately with various
well-respected members of the working group (including the chair(s))
to ask what course of action would be best for gaining the needed
attention.

Listen to the feedback.  If the advisers do not see the importance of
the issue, consider whether it really is important, and consider how
to make clearer its importance.  If the advisers suggest a course of
action, follow it.

Because reputations are built of doing good work in a series of
particular instances.

Dale