Re: [Diversity] Consideration for participation

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 19 June 2016 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DA912B016 for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.527
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=MQCaJGA0; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=uzQi1oUM
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbFI2RC-pD0v for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E6A12B00D for <>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5JDSpB0027681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1466342944; x=1466429344; bh=aJiJItJSyDOPyWqp7zMzZnRYZXc1SyHD8ErlKv2XDuc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MQCaJGA0aS5QZQbbqvm8unR6HBFKWXG1MpIjT0279b+58GxzMS3Abc7+tA8K3LahQ xHB2nsosLiMQiWAgfK0AdvKDsO5mcdmUMmqyGlp15prdcyLhUeDIVgh0q4avwXliFI hEXX9Kn2oFpQJxuzKAn0Q11ctsJUagtxrcVxANTE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1466342944; x=1466429344;; bh=aJiJItJSyDOPyWqp7zMzZnRYZXc1SyHD8ErlKv2XDuc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=uzQi1oUMykHHQRDKfx64M1oVrbEBzTAsvn1yLP85Qu8np3mQd/4qWKGm/Tao5Pm3J BC39IXzS+86Rtnfok5nzWw63qZ6jyzr/03adYfRcQ/HSJTv9qgyrH8cnpswCJK+Aiz raYfL6QrPBT+jKcjsWZeNNq5W+xqcqpdXkY6UJ7w=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:25:38 -0700
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8_GfRz=zJMNDMegJAq6pkqJK3NAz67-X8ZBtGWNmULrKw@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
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 13:29:10 -0000

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.

S. Moonesamy