Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 19 April 2016 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772DD12D9DA for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C4ElCr5gAp-z for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5483C12D9E0 for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3JE1xPO014002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:02:00 -0700
References: <> <>
To:, Fernando Gont <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:01:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Hui Deng <>, Dhruv Dhody <>, "" <>, Christian O'Flaherty <>, Alvaro Retana <>, Vinayak Hegde <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work
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: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:02:07 -0000

On 4/19/2016 6:50 AM, wrote:
>>Since we are supposed to do our primary work on mailing lists, the
>>actual model has the simple premise that increasing participation from a
>>region warrants extending the range of regions we hold meetings at.
>>That is, to get the IETF to come a region, there first needs to be more
>>people from that region actively contributing through working group
>>mailing lists.
> Yes, of course.  But, it is a bit more nuanced than that.   I think it
> is difficult to get a real sense of the IETF & the excitement & purpose
> unless you attend live & get involved.

There certainly is a major difference between participating only over 
email, versus also going to meetings.  But note that even if the 
meetings start coming to a region, this means that folk in that region 
need to be able to attend meetings in other regions.

> But, I believe he will be a part of a draft review team & then, I think
> as we get more & more such people, we can point to well thought out
> contributions from new people from various regions of the world on the
> WG email lists.

The review team effort is an excellent idea and I hope it goes well.

> BTW, if anyone is interested in commenting, I have made up a structure
> for how the Internet Draft review teams (guided by a remote mentor) will
> work.  I can post the instructions and structure to the list & would
> love comments from anyone.

Yes, please!


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking