Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 16 June 2016 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9748C12D600 for <>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=vADl9mTs; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=EMamC737
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wBconx-_YHf for <>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE88912D0EB for <>; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5G3qTMR003151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1466049161; x=1466135561; bh=zP0xdVcCAMvUn7wXhT85VayZGCcgcbpS11JAZFBllSE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=vADl9mTsp2IRhcXnbLFFD9rvmVsSEpkuodSkmc7NaAr8WkAcCAEoZbtQrAQRYL91E MdA6juW/Ro5U3iI18Ou4PubStY9r6th7KTzxyMOl87EY1HwhubEEhTsaM9Zgkxv189 90vjxWpx7mtFDi5/RedAnU8H17bRJ0Rse3tkFkME=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1466049161; x=1466135561;; bh=zP0xdVcCAMvUn7wXhT85VayZGCcgcbpS11JAZFBllSE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=EMamC737kKYEXes0u7yquH0ETiJTy252SMvIfOiMbDBHCUNFXyBvXa4/oA2QbMMg9 5GIPRBh/wq7yqkNLvz9wEoe632h28250wTCdSF3pwOWXpRivdYISa9IJ06RxCfFS9h TC70bhEzCcddafqDnnsaTPhlDaX4P+xm3adY/Di0=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:52:10 -0700
To: Melinda Shore <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 03:52:50 -0000

Hi Melinda,
At 19:39 15-06-2016, Melinda Shore wrote:
>I'm unclear on the relevance of *any* of this to the points I


>raised.  But I'll tell you one thing for sure:  I am disturbed
>by the extent to which we're an organization in which someone
>can participate meaningfully while being remote when we're
>talking about Singapore and the extent we're an organization
>in which someone needs to attend meetings to build relationships
>and move work forward the rest of the time.  Seriously, this
>needs to stop.

I am trying to understand the above.  I found two points:

   (a) someone can participate meaningfully while being remote

   (b) someone needs to attend meetings to build relationships
       and move work forward the rest of the time

I could not understand the "this needs to stop".  Is it the extent to 
which someone needs to attend meetings (please see (b)) which needs to stop?

S. Moonesamy