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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/5/2015 8:49 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> OLD
> 
>    This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
>    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
>    demeanor.
> 
> NEW
> 
>   This document discusses about professional conduct and participation
>   in the IETF in respect to diversity.

> As a comment about the above, I kept the sentence short and avoided
> "nature and practicalities" as it may be, in my personal opinion,
> unclear to an average reader.  Please feel free to edit it as you might
> be able to find something better than what I suggested.

Your explanation gives less information about what the scope of the
paper.  So, I suggest instead:

     This paper discusses IETF diversity, in terms of the nature of
diversity and practical issues that can increase or decrease it.



>> > 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.
> 
> If a group is diverse it would likely have some female members.  The

It might and it might not.

In the second paragraph of 2.1 the paper explicitly makes the point that
evaluating diversity in the IETF according to specific attributes is
problematic.  Rather, we need to look for meaningful diversity of any
kind (or, perhaps, multiple and diverse kinds.)


> fact that there wasn't any women selected could mean:
> 
>   (i)  There isn't any diversity problem with the group
> 
>   (ii) There was a diversity problem and that explains why
>        no woman was selected.
> 
>> Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact
>> of what actually happened.  It's reporting, not analysis.
> 
> Yes.  However, the document might be saying (i) or (ii).

Those choices exist for every possible attribute one might consider,
when looking at an IETF group.  And the list of possible attributes is
closer to infinite than to small.



>> > 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.
> 
> That is the linkage which the average reader will do.

Your invoking that text from Introduction is problematic on two counts.

The first is that its use in the Introduction is in terms of the past tense.

The second is that the first paragraph of Section 2.1 establishes a
broader and more basic scope for considering diversity in the IETF.  You
appear to be ignoring it.


>> 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.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> > 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.
> 
> What I meant was that the draft's title has "much diversity while one
> example in the draft is about women; the harassment as discussed in the
> IETF has been mainly about sexual harassment.  I don't think that it
> would be fair to ask the authors of this draft to discuss the other
> problems.  I'll say ok to the above.

The draft does not discuss /any/ form of harassment in detail, including
sexual harassment.

The draft is not attempting to summarize or even to particularly
reflect the IETF's discussion of harassment.


>> > 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.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This is where the question of the target audience (of the draft)
> arises.  Is it for people familiar with the IETF or is it for a wider
> audience?  For the latter, people will likely read "engagement" as
> meaning what I described as externally-oriented engagement.

I've no idea what your basis for saying that is.  First, the word is
regularly used to refer variously to external and internal engagement.
For example in the American Red Cross there is reference  to Community
Engagement and to Volunteer Engagement, pointing outward and inward
respectively.

In any event, the second paragraph of Section 3.2, the draft says
explicitly what it means in the use here.  So the use within the
document is clear.


>> > 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.
> 
> The above points are based on the following text in the draft:
> 
>   "The security of the IETF's role in the Internet community depends
>    upon its credibility as an open and productive venue for
>    collaborative development of technical documents."
> 
> It is up to the authors to address those points.

Actually, it up to the IETF.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net