Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update

Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com> Tue, 15 December 2015 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vinayakh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089871AD1C3 for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wifn-COTEqxd for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9E31ACE89 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id n186so114740987wmn.0 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wJNUpjFMuinULIH89Y0fCkNVkC4K77saLhKaUc2/8AE=; b=FswFytDlyIoXIrZI3PpzGCF4rvBg+MpylfJebHT4GPFUB3gWpTklAjr45fa0PHPbyI QVjuEI4DTjYmf19ZXIP3CD/s45oDK8mkRt5SHA3AX2wLoiUc8QYOYYvZRdTDNzQii3wt 7550PTScRle/XQbjxkvglrBd0DEdE5QHsXAhgkUPpvxHrGLUUDU2NOToaQfS5rue9Hut EGBDYp7meb2lFuggHeBWW8cT3Py0t0y+j6lm7V81uGKPVzW3hFZQ3TNpCsbimYOMf3GU xz1HAqhvHf6RN2Mx79KYyS23V/JlwbyvG/5T9zwcv7PLUWHcxvYdMTKwSDvk6v/xAhqD 6big==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.109.194 with SMTP id hu2mr45441163wjb.134.1450215424487; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.24.198 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:37:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151205150907.0f246298@elandnews.com> <097E0F25-2691-4DA6-8FF7-07DC91A80CCB@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151207000833.0cf1eff8@resistor.net> <566B5B11.9060108@gmail.com> <CAKe6YvOzi+pUegxXuAtN=9jfqjN7_mp4vXDn582xFhNmZ3+hmQ@mail.gmail.com> <566F340E.3040309@gmail.com> <566F390B.4000602@si6networks.com> <566F7C04.60908@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151214232438.0f120060@resistor.net> <566FD263.5030908@si6networks.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151215062538.0eff5a50@resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:07:04 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKe6YvPU=0TFW-8crubNf+nMSDmBre6vh3x5e_iZoZwsTh7E-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/NVWNJP6k-xs8eHbnqxM-pTY7td8>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>, "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update
X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <diversity.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diversity/>
List-Post: <mailto:diversity@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:37:10 -0000

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:15 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
> Hi Fernando, Vinayak, Alejandro,
> At 00:42 15-12-2015, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> I'm not they "you" you meant :-), but I can provide names:
>
>
> Fernando, thanks for providing the information.
>
>> That said, I don't think "lack of awareness" is the real problem here.
>
>
> From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00700.html
>
>   'kind of got the feeling that that there was the intent to do
>    something about it, but for the most part it was "energy spent
>    without careful analysis of what the underlying problem was".'
>
> From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00695.html I
> read that the agencies providing funding for countries in Latin America do
> not find it useful to spend money on IETF standardisation work.
>
> The statistics provided by Jari Arkko measures IETF Contributions in terms
> of RFC authorship.  I could be a WG Secretary/Chair; that has less "value"
> unless I am interested in becoming An Area Director.  A company/agency would
> view it useful if it derives a benefit from having a person in that
> position.
>
> What is your opinion about the above?

Hi SM,

I am not sure what Fernando is refering to:
I think I have pointed out some common issues that I (and other from
my region have faced).

1. Awareness of the IETF - How the IETF process can be beneficial for
companies / organizations to build better and interoperable products.
Outreach and sometimes lack of role models and mentors is also an
issue (covered in next point)

2. Lack of a good mentor network - How do you go and get feedback
about the process and drafts from someone local or someone who is from
the same culture and / or talks the same language and understand IETF.

3. Funding - Harder to come by in developing countries but I have seen
this changing slowly but surely. ISOC and other local organizations
are doing a good job here. I can see the efforts of these helping.

4. Visas - This is often the elephant in the room. It is just painful
to get a visa if you are in a developing country and the amount of
documentation needed is insane. I have often submitted 200+ pages of
documentation and had my visa rejected for flimsy reasons. This is
something people from US/Europe do not face as much and understand.
Again This has gotten better over the years (such as personalized IETF
invitation letters).

I can see that the IETF is helping in 1 (but can do much more), 2 is
slowly getting fixed due to mentoring network / regional mentors
thanks to individual efforts (Nalini, Alvaro, Christian amongst
others), 3 (nothing much IETF can do AFAIK here - thrugh not charging
so far for remote access has been helpful), 4 - IETF has improved here
over the lasy 5 years but still some way to go (like hosting hotel
rooms getting sold out).

Thanks
Vinayak