Re: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,
At 18:01 18-03-2015, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Some quick responses.  (These are my own; Narelle might have others.)

[snip]

>I thought (and think) that the draft discusses exactly this point, and
>at length.
>
>It specifically asserts that aggressive behavior is a disincentive for
>participation by those from polite societies.  And it asserts that
>bullying and harassment -- one hopes those qualify as unprofessional
>conduct -- marginalize targeted participants.

[snip]

>That quoted text described the /origins/ of the IETF.  Later text noted
>that participation now is far more open and diverse.

[snip]

>Section 2 describes the nature of diversity, the nature of attempts to
>ensure it, and the nature of some important problems that work against
>it.  Section 2.2 focuses on a distinctive aspect of IETF culture that
>works against practical diversity.  One could have other sections
>discussing other factors, but you won't be surprised to hear that I
>think harassment and bullying are central issues in the IETF culture
>that work against constructive diversity.

[snip]

>The draft is not seeking to cite or deal with a wide range of issues.
>Nor is it trying to review other discussions of surrounding issues.
>
>Those issues are important and that RFC is useful.  But I don't see that
>citing it alters the current draft meaningfully.

[snip]

>The historical discussion is focused solely on forces that have worked
>against diversity and against constructive, respectful discourse.

I'll comment about the content of the draft in this message.

I am not surprised to hear that harassment and bullying are viewed as 
central issues.  I am fine with the publication of a personal view 
about that and I'll commend the authors for taking up the challenge.

I read the Introduction section.  It is well-written and it looks 
good.  The following text caught my attention:

   "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
    demeanor."

I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF 
attention" was not clear to me.  From the above response I'll pick 
the following:

   (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF)

   (b) bullying and harassment

I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that 
the average reader can easily understand that the central issues are 
(b) and the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b).

I agree that citing RFC 3774 is not meaningful.

In the Introduction Section:

   'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process.  Nomcom is itself a potentially
    diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.'

If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue:

   "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high
    number of female candidates, not a single one was selected."

Quoting text from the draft:

   "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen
    as reflecting IETF culture generally."

That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor 
"well-funded, American, white, male engineers".  The current IESG 
members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html  There 
are three female members.  The female members are well-funded, 
American and white.  Is it the opinion of the authors that "much 
diversity" is about the male and female question only?  Section 2.1 
mentions several other variables.  However, the rest of the draft 
does not contain any discussion about those variables.

The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and 
Professional Conduct".  Section 2.2 is about professional 
conduct.  Section 3 and Section 4 are about participation.  I suggest 
following a "participation and professional conduct" angle as the 
content of the draft does not discuss about economic status or demographics.

 From Section 3.1:

   "In speech, it means speaking more deliberately, a bit more clearly
    and a bit more slowly than one needs with close collaborators.  When
    language is cryptic or filled with linguistic idiosyncrasies and when
    speech is too fast, it is dramatically less accessible to a diverse
    audience.

 From a diversity perspective the speaker would also have to avoid 
some cultural references, e.g. not expecting that all the 
participants are familiar with baseball.  From a participation 
perspective the above comes out as "speak slowly" instead of "get 
down to the level of your audience if you would like people to 
understand what you are saying".

 From Section 3.2:

   "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse
    contribution for further development.  Engagement means that it easy
    for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously through
    constructive interaction."

Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider 
input.  The above explains it as "making it easy for existing 
participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions".

Section 5 is about security considerations.  How would the IETF be 
affected if it is no longer viewed as:

   (a) a credible open venue

   (b) a credible productive venue

   (c) a venue where there is diversity

Nits:

In the Introduction Section:

   "IAB members and IAOC members"

I suggest expanding the acronyms on first use as it was done for "IETF".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy