Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation

Abdussalam Baryun <> Sun, 19 June 2016 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA6E12D0CC for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:36:40 -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 fsSEasF5Mp7b for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F323E12D091 for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a186so134283204qkf.0 for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:36:37 -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=S70o/Z9pDqPX9er58VF9jqkRgGYy3h/lkpOrUnbLJyM=; b=VWI3jMtjKzUimOUh9t7uRwST06Q6S8GDJZXTLLftFhCtHjKHZoqdbE0UgA4eaN4DrG eCUBj+RIeGF3KbsEpN5FhHe+/JCNGvWPjDfjO/5472mpEiXHpLs/j02MwdSFpD0TVG6d 6siRUXWuKeCgtJnBchFAjoy18WldaQMcsG387IGJUk3xrSYpKhxF2VSV5RCMn4wwURyM zO+itgOTm8CeI/MRwCPsXCn06NKBWRaJKZLUIvRJQyOUWSISqYtS+zCo2z5DUKgiZi2b eTPGTQ+qbuWcFuYiNlsCDuYcfAThuLUXijef5H3875IE1svs06TgXBCxcQ+q+qwruysf jXFQ==
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=S70o/Z9pDqPX9er58VF9jqkRgGYy3h/lkpOrUnbLJyM=; b=a/LMKp6DHYyxz9V7pghrWI3kWowNfrOUtV+6hBKWqx9r94kQTBYQv0B4JFm2YJ4YGX FZILrBZK67+XalQnM1Q1LsaRNag33nECum0Y97WnUCO7sNruZZhaLMAENb8HQh7Gna3G 7ymIbjwoWl521ksknf/D8J7FhohiF6YbY/vqr1ZpNnhhhbL/dfIW1POfUssBr3DrAM9e PqO6g86dMGiy0GuaJ3WBpDWlfcNbP13LmRwzZx31ujOz4nYadPjop0PwunGFD/TwJnCi TblIU6grmooy9QjPOZIdZx9BWqZaamvVI3CaZLv59VyJAM5EZ+dNC1M1zAfPHQjO2xMM hA/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKoACuaHg8CYbj2ZifuwQYkp4GEeQg9OX8rLkT8GlL52XFN29Sm1VF/pL9IKZh8dtXUEbZYGk3de5C38Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n140mr16045648qkn.10.1466346997045; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 16:36:36 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c09593ee05ecc0535a28374
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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 14:36:40 -0000

Hi S. Moonesamy,

I think no one should tell any to be remote or present, it is the decision
of the participant to find what is best. However, the organisation needs to
do their best to treat both remote and attended participants the same. They
are not the same in their advantages and disadvantages but still both are
needed by the organisation but I don't believe that there is a problem if
most often attendees become remote participants once a year. Overall, IMHO
it is normal that many cannot attend IETF meetings while their are reasons,
but what is not normal that few attendees cannot become remote participants
once a year while the remote-facilities are available.


On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:25 PM, S Moonesamy <> wrote:

> Hi Abdussalam,
> At 04:20 19-06-2016, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> I did not understand some lines in both conversation, and sorry if it is
>> long email,
> There is a message from Spencer Dawkins at
> The
> last part of that message might explain the discussions.
> 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
> My comment was about whether it would be appropriate of me to tell a
> person who cannot attend a meeting because he/she would not be treated the
> same as some other group of persons that he/she can participate remotely.
> I do not believe that it is appropriate.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy