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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

SM,

(Any items not commented on below, from your note, seem to be
suggestions for specific changes that are straightforward and, of
course, reasonable.)


On 3/19/2015 5:06 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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).

If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful.

My own inclination was (and is) to rely on the table of contents to lay
that out, if the reader cannot wait to read the text that follows.


> 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."

Please explain your basis for asserting that.

Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact
of what actually happened.  It's reporting, not analysis.


> 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". 

You are taking a description of the early days of the Arpanet research
community and applying it to current IETF operations.  The draft never
makes nor intends that linkage, particularly since the current
population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet days.


> 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? 

The draft offers, implies and intends no such opinion.

For example:
> Section 2.1 mentions several other
> variables.  However, the rest of the draft does not contain any
> discussion about those variables.

The draft is intended to focus on the importance of variety.  It does that.

The draft is not intended to be a general tutorial about the vast array
of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group.


> 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.

I do not understand what changes you are proposing, nor the problems
with the draft that these would fix.  Please be specific.


> 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".

You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement.

The text is meant to cover both external and internal, though the 'to be
heard' has a clear focus on internal.  That is, folks already attempting
to participate.


> 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

Please offer specific text.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net