Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation

Abdussalam Baryun <> Sun, 19 June 2016 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA67712B02B for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 tTBnwdWz3os7 for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68D1128B44 for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t127so9604750qkf.1 for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ypqwsWTfCXes9VWZygCysFwI9zDM+NdA9pqWmCDsfH4=; b=N/1NDjx8qUcLfmN6LQ7Aacft2b5+VPDtSL6F3nSOFaRqsOvn819GRk/LbX4dX9eOjh QjsQ4M0Re+pT+KRuGkBPOup43l2VBkH58f/UNV3As154GeVrT6tjK4l9tgPZXBiZkt22 sGD76TkDCtWjGl6WavVeU0+gTVZLWMYzKCNUHr+UXBj3EhMdt88NGONRNaVkwFEmvEB3 aAKsmF9a83mhcQ5oLdpZ9UKIAV6Z42TjaYY7uk5XBnzsDd595m2IJ/mXCqqEvXSww+Vt h5aaWkxIOew8AdEwy2neTCLMEDcIWvvtw1qZxIYygNL0UcyDtQsgzW6m9OetDLpdv/v+ VmOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ypqwsWTfCXes9VWZygCysFwI9zDM+NdA9pqWmCDsfH4=; b=MEn9r5CVBr+c9SzjV+XDsT69/Pclpy2SPjbd7m4I44Zg20ByAS1PM0HPRzi/NfVTVe uJ8KiXC69fcUFInRdGJncfbl4Rlix/NvyXCdiiWTxoJB+6rMYH7TRso1yiT4h0DcTIBM Iga2c7vF+2HukSokN+ZZUCufjw37g2KxF4bmbSlsXlsgYHWXI57KLNQU9ucF/1AgUeGc 0YCsfCD/98QEJ0hcFiFS+7CvR1z2Jrs2p8cEM/WX89G14rbHWojX3PDNTWGhe/qrM0Xu Ce96N9O8cWzHjshT3iZI9ouYHtJ58XmU9yaskSAeMqvNrbC1S8092s2+mbE+X4khqRPd 5Ndw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIetgme6JPkHkCGyoM6THZFDGnsaZMpQxNklaGtLj7JqRYvuf8wJhYnWZPBv3GSDlEq44FAxl1fuJdR6A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u24mr13462309qki.93.1466335248731; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:20:48 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147a0209f6d2d05359fc71a
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Melinda Shore <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation
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: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:20:52 -0000

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.


On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:52 AM, S Moonesamy <> 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