Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)

<> Wed, 20 April 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5678B12D722 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 t2gc2VR7QO49 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A6E12E8E3 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1461166884; bh=IwUUIDh1kORhvh7bjcSgwqE0xqXNVBK+VS2nbZfd9m4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=D91UAS+HA2MKhEw6c64dHU5m59Y0zfVIrV/KSU7XTIxHdLeI5QQFb0UycLkrgLRJK9s87AYpzCX/6O6j0Tf2HAqAO+gl6heE6Gc79vJhrHJWmsXp1TSHg2Bo8p8Z6Lk2SoyACRRBvECJiEH9wZm8aHv+02hTkl4+3gs6/CwwKeRWILRULDCqdvw5J3gchr4XPBzzk9FnMe95NKysJixyyynL9lzxNzlIehQvzKuD0naBfSswRS8HGEDUIwzML3I8sxiCNb5WaEfIHpFxyNqPV4FSrtR6u4YuoE630I/8lFVrzrQgdtVtw9cs4bUAK9gi1IUtbz1gFfxsdk3pJ52cYQ==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2016 15:41:24 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2016 15:41:24 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 20 Apr 2016 15:41:24 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: osCyp2cVM1lX3r1KvF6gt92Pq3M_FvzZdOJr6GameViJeUkWQLpSExBIJALNaGg B8LRnWpweIkWVrf4MJ2JgKin.c0QG9JHhdnXicm72YiIQW7WzoBAQvZ9OH_mc60dXFsLsDV83x7G e85rWI0EEVvmS1dnXxbPk.A08N8uRLjq6zfqZaKCPGLD.4ZIx0fO6mabf8tF1Ch7MH6hy4T1JOtR lLvP1hbhzvEhOAteUoHpyR3hI.Nd3Z1aVYFUfiKFnfbasN34Uy0Zq57neFfQW_LOewa9KrM04oJ. be.OcL3zTt66dVajl1fJxeToxYgI.b5Ad_FYPRGm864VTnDlfa0BJy5YEX5qBA2oimwhowSxSVgJ 6GVc6NDAdUWEUjGSF7LLdPnu954TJj5jkUVkZLtUXhrJOJBURSEl86.RgDUyZcGIm_VLcSOBpufr .hbb44.Bv2dzZ4bMv8sGmBibBswd9qmXdfzoQ5Gt8_4FF7piIq87WjY.VNUxpVd_YBEE_zRNHJHZ DlysIeFrf5sWETo4A99wZvlhYmDanltAe
Received: by; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:41:24 +0000
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:41:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3404973_1894135934.1461166882184"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Hui Deng <>, Dhruv Dhody <>, "" <>, Christian O'Flaherty <>, Alvaro Retana <>, SM <>, Vinayak Hegde <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:43:46 -0000

 Abussalam,  let's continue this conversation privately & let's see if I can get you talking to the right people.   When you write back, please drop the diversity list & others from the CC list.   I think this has now become a specific conversation and not of one dealing with general issues.
>Even though I am participating for long but still see that I am new, just because I don't attend meetings or did not write a draft that got acceptance. 
Can you point me to the draft you have written in the past that did not get acceptance?

>Yes we need a mentor in MANET WG, I think many need that. This group is dynamic or mobile, but I still participate, I hope I get a mentor participating, I asked the AD before but we did >not find. 
I know some wonderful people in the MANET group that I can connect you with.  The more I know about your interests, the better for all.

>Mainly we (new participants) need a mentor in the IETF general Area, because it is a difficult group as well, you can see when you discuss on the IETF list you see it is a disaster. 
I am trying to understand what you are saying here.  You mean a mentor who will help you understand how the IETF works as a whole?   I can certainly find you more than one mentor.

>However, I think with your team and help we can solve many issues. 

Thank you for your kind words.  I hope so.  I hope that together with my team & the kind mentors that we can make you into a productive (and happy!) IETF participant.   Let's continue to talk privately.  BTW, if you can tell me what language(s) you feel most comfortable with, if not English, then, that will be quite helpful as well.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <> wrote:


>Thanks alot. I had a great mentor (mentoring remotely) in 2013. I had started in IETF discussions remotely from about 4 or 5 years (before the mentoring program) it was a disaster but I >kept good discussions. The problem I faced was that I needed a mentor that is a participant in the WG I am working in and I found that the best practical solution is having mentors per WG >not per region. However, I am happy we have mentors per region which is good and I will work that we have mentors per WG as well. I hope the IETF general area looks into this issue as >well.
We DO have mentors per WG.   When we get a mentee who expresses interest in a certain WG, then I ask mentors if they can help for that WG.
 I think the confusion may be that we are still developing our remote mentoring.  I feel that remote mentoring is probably best done via the Internet Draft Review Teams & such initiatives.  We have tried individual remote mentor / mentees before & it was not very successful.
If you need a mentor for a particular WG, please email me directly & I will see if I can find one.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, <> wrote:

>Thanks for your email. My opinion is that the IETF needs to work harder on these issues. IMHO, the problem is mainly that mentors are still in few numbers, and the IETF needs to look >into the IETF culture or better to say their WG culture. I recommend we need one or two mentors for each WG, so the mentor MUST not be the Chair or AD, the mentor MUST be a >participant in that WG (better if he/she was a Chair before).
 Abdussalam, thanks for your comments.  As head of the IETF Mentoring Team, we actually have quite a few mentors.   In fact, far more mentors than mentees.  Also, if we need mentors from a particular Working Group, I ask the WG and people are very generous with their time.   (For which, I thank everyone!)
Are you speaking of remote mentors or regional mentors?
What would you like the mentoring program to do?   We welcome suggestions!  
NaliniIETF Mentoring Team

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, SM <> wrote:

Hi Nalini,
At 12:50 18-04-2016, wrote:

I wonder if there has not been more participation in active IETF work before from other regions because there was no structured way to start participating and language insensitivity.  (BTW, there is a new member of the Mentoring Team from Latin America, that I met in Buenos Aires who will translate the Mentoring emails into Spanish.)

Attendance figures were used as a substitute for Participation figures. The IETF Community did not show much interest in doing anything about that.  A few years ago, an IAOC Chair posted the following to justify the meeting policy:

There wasn't any formal effort (as the one you are doing) to train people from other regions to start participating except for the meeting training sessions.  A person who is not used to discussing in English faces a higher learning curve in comparison with someone from Australia.

The regional mentors (in the Cc) might be able to comment about why there has not been more active participation before.

diversity mailing list