Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)

<> Wed, 20 April 2016 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394FE12E480 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Si_gsx7_JVjJ for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FFE712EF92 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1461165745; bh=VwhIA9XuJLulLtjlMsXqSW+NFF75IVjEhxM+GyXcasE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=PLWSehofFquJ0RelnbthRSJOZENBLkFQ8UsKCP5foagw5cJ8JqKF7m9bTrmYME6mk6HfxVVutWUo66r7SG9VQVIE2ioFLUijwICJ8bNPqmpnHRJwgg0cR5osmn4ORCFl0E+rrlygH9Jgfg+9vlKlOGDRAW3vPQgd4ht6KqYRqU4OIyvk8MeOLd1FMajhSlmOMhXvjjRGGdFLmcAMQm9Hjq5NzQZamTi7MPEv41LUxSKjs2xiATHQI37ZmFwQP62jX9HnVT1lADGekumRAAgmH4y/ZgvNBvo0pm7qOdHZiYhcslUHqQykTEp0vocZxYJB+GV3XUyZSX2BjeckUilKjQ==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2016 15:22:25 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2016 15:21:25 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2016 15:21:25 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: jDjMPksVM1lcH8rTAb8PjZaXeZBrPgJ0A5pd69L.4QU5eBhz0UXL7lQ7be5RMwu 3BiQw5R7q175hvKJXS.uiES4n0MXynjVNh08lapcKCDFsG5T0E.UENiAp3HRn7DPT8flj.ak0NeB 8Jov.J56RdHWjnehrtrh21wjjxAzrVXv9V0DkA18sKhLNUVnsNPkhu.a6pwdjKmxKI_sdj.tVnNe BmN2oQn6JHOErm9yg.iSl.x7r3oka6wFsJtbp7X.1ks6Bna82apV_KuVdmqFcazsUzozi1eOaYhJ tHHFlnWYLO_uHvoblGfmGUcV.WTesIWnlZcQubplmJXV4pJXr29XY9u1SQ7GtS1_tW3GtDiKqePJ wmIFskpFSg.28VT6wHvaVgOtc40AaBCcHJjIq3gXKwQCO6tFIbYvi0YTR5kHGhyPiW5CTqK7uKya IrS02KXagXg_g4qs9rctJtwsJaRLiuTg2.vCorIG8xqxeL1hMI1F6VozX5SNGNMJZL9hpLW5uyWi y.4uwuorYC899dstI6.3Osx4vtWuqy8V5
Received: by; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:21:25 +0000
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:21:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3250763_2100600564.1461165680957"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Hui Deng <>, Dhruv Dhody <>, "" <>, Christian O'Flaherty <>, Alvaro Retana <>, SM <>, Vinayak Hegde <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:36:05 -0000


>Thanks alot. I had a great mentor (mentoring remotely) in 2013. I had started in IETF discussions remotely from about 4 or 5 years (before the mentoring program) it was a disaster but I >kept good discussions. The problem I faced was that I needed a mentor that is a participant in the WG I am working in and I found that the best practical solution is having mentors per WG >not per region. However, I am happy we have mentors per region which is good and I will work that we have mentors per WG as well. I hope the IETF general area looks into this issue as >well.
We DO have mentors per WG.   When we get a mentee who expresses interest in a certain WG, then I ask mentors if they can help for that WG.
 I think the confusion may be that we are still developing our remote mentoring.  I feel that remote mentoring is probably best done via the Internet Draft Review Teams & such initiatives.  We have tried individual remote mentor / mentees before & it was not very successful.
If you need a mentor for a particular WG, please email me directly & I will see if I can find one.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, <> wrote:

>Thanks for your email. My opinion is that the IETF needs to work harder on these issues. IMHO, the problem is mainly that mentors are still in few numbers, and the IETF needs to look >into the IETF culture or better to say their WG culture. I recommend we need one or two mentors for each WG, so the mentor MUST not be the Chair or AD, the mentor MUST be a >participant in that WG (better if he/she was a Chair before).
 Abdussalam, thanks for your comments.  As head of the IETF Mentoring Team, we actually have quite a few mentors.   In fact, far more mentors than mentees.  Also, if we need mentors from a particular Working Group, I ask the WG and people are very generous with their time.   (For which, I thank everyone!)
Are you speaking of remote mentors or regional mentors?
What would you like the mentoring program to do?   We welcome suggestions!  
NaliniIETF Mentoring Team

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, SM <> wrote:

Hi Nalini,
At 12:50 18-04-2016, wrote:

I wonder if there has not been more participation in active IETF work before from other regions because there was no structured way to start participating and language insensitivity.  (BTW, there is a new member of the Mentoring Team from Latin America, that I met in Buenos Aires who will translate the Mentoring emails into Spanish.)

Attendance figures were used as a substitute for Participation figures. The IETF Community did not show much interest in doing anything about that.  A few years ago, an IAOC Chair posted the following to justify the meeting policy:

There wasn't any formal effort (as the one you are doing) to train people from other regions to start participating except for the meeting training sessions.  A person who is not used to discussing in English faces a higher learning curve in comparison with someone from Australia.

The regional mentors (in the Cc) might be able to comment about why there has not been more active participation before.

diversity mailing list