Re: [Cfrg] CFRG Review Panel

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Sat, 15 October 2016 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4831296BE for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yS90ZuH4HQBk for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F003F129490 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id o68so215029497qkf.3 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=d0RNlNYR5WhEUytny6gR79CDnyMajZ7SidgOcxNZQCI=; b=gNEwpHbzVjfOAXvWFCFdxxUBXf0MP41btO9AfcAR9pZIXYjDaySE8xaaSmVUAk12xZ himCa+ixxOSoLPNZfur/c5gU/77EhA2mEVtYc1RMKHWMaY3/tJYO+dbyB/vz6UntQkKb ceze+5rfguhsMm9lx5BM/+Gdxb3JZ4Shs1asI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=d0RNlNYR5WhEUytny6gR79CDnyMajZ7SidgOcxNZQCI=; b=dBPFNP5uRlmhlfe+jSOX+y7UOpob9vJGeGFKPnQ68xO8vFNL21zHWPJHsVvrmpTuaY RQvm2uSaeO/n59789xQCQG9jwPn8a2+pvHfvP9IYQEF82FBrieTEBrgyrHiJzUog0nNF lbMAMUEJYEK+YdvFm7fibY/fMIUdC7qy+q33DhhKgbbXfdlwQVMx1qdi6ovuXM3nVR1Q rgKLOUo/s9vl/+zPceUXRyZWd/rmRQ/VsojfJ66Sw82MK116+AWJseJORhz2md5IHoq6 wDH/pj2qfVTyfbhWCflvgRS6plhHKztAmDI9wVk1NXhjyoDzwJB/4GiajLuhrdZK+FJ9 A46A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkM8Y4Oa8tIMFud2OdIHW4GiuL7bCGGMUZcRdR/WtJ3WEhK6d7D2sLil6OVV4EuJbVwj0NIBEogshVQBA==
X-Received: by 10.55.16.9 with SMTP id a9mr15869005qkh.268.1476491229043; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.45.68 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:470:1f07:121:79bd:6abc:20ea:280]
In-Reply-To: <0D1EEEFD0CF946899D5B8476A04518FD@Khan>
References: <D4265FAF.76C8F%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk> <b0222226b6fb4d01b6a2e5ae50a4ca77@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <0D1EEEFD0CF946899D5B8476A04518FD@Khan>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:27:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nV0zuu0Ut4C-65t9iOyD3gFEtpndWtROfpyUaeCeosyDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "denis bider (Bitvise)" <ietf-ssh3@denisbider.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114758da38ba3b053edc67a1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/8GQ8285yRShSucvgR0FmArxp088>
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] CFRG Review Panel
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:27:12 -0000

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:04 PM, denis bider (Bitvise) <
ietf-ssh3@denisbider.com> wrote:

> It is perverse to manufacture the appearance of a non-existent diversity
> by attempting to discriminate, at this very late point in the process,
> against men.
>

Leaving aside the flamebait and politics...

I would like to think (and I strongly suspect!) that the process for
selection of this crew made no undue consideration for gender (or race,
ethnicity, etc.), and that selection was entirely with regard to merit,
within the constraint of self-selection. I don't think Rich was saying
otherwise: I read his lament as one of disappointment at the outcome, not
disappointment in the particular process. In other words: I think you read
too much into it.

Frankly, I agree with his oft-stated wider point that it's a disappointment
that there aren't more women (or people of color, or ...) involved in IETF:
in my case, not because I think there's a particular technical benefit to
having gender or ethnic diversity, but because it's a sign of a wider
social inequity that we, as leaders in a worldwide community, have a moral
responsibility to help address.

Kyle