Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation

Hi S. Moonesamy,

I did not understand some lines in both conversation, and sorry if it is
long email,

I think I understood the issue raised, that a participant with low
technical contribution should not be equally considered as a participant
with high quality, or what is argued is when we decide to go to a city (ex.
singapore or paris, etc.) if few high quality contributors cannot meet then
we should change, or when we decide to go to a city with majority agreeing
but that majority are low quality contributors, then we should not go to
that city. In my opinion, we should not stop equality and openess, because
what makes any smart or stupid contribution with value is that all
participants/users/people can read/understand it.
For Example, Native English speakers may think that they are best
contributors but they are wrong, because people chosen the language to be
used with no smart reason. Another Example, many new technology seem smart
in the beginning but in the future, it can be the opposite , however, what
makes it smart is the users/customers that paid for such stupid technology,
because users had less organisation contribution but they are the most
financial contribution.

I like a great statement written: If you are the smartest person in the
room then you are in the wrong room. So it is best to be open in the world
without rooms, so joining with equality can be best development strategy.
In my opinion, the smartest non-profit-organization when deciding for
meeting-issues needs to consider equally all participants and users without
looking into evaluating work contributions or into evaluating financial
contributions, or into evaluating benefits, or etc.

AB

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:52 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> Ok.
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>