Re: [Diversity] Review of draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,
At 17:46 05-04-2015, Dave Crocker wrote:
>(Any items not commented on below, from your note, seem to be
>suggestions for specific changes that are straightforward and, of
>course, reasonable.)

Thanks.  I'll comment below.


>On 3/19/2015 5:06 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > I read the Introduction section.  It is well-written and it looks good.
> > The following text caught my attention:
> >
> >   "This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
> >    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
> >    demeanor."
> >
> > I paused as the meaning of "the nature and practicalities of IETF
> > attention" was not clear to me.  From the above response I'll pick the
> > following:
> >
> >   (a) disincentive for participation (in the IETF)
> >
> >   (b) bullying and harassment
> >
> > I suggest rewriting that text about "nature and practices" so that the
> > average reader can easily understand that the central issues are (b) and
> > the draft is a discussion of (a) and (b).
>
>If you want to suggest specific text, that would be helpful.

OLD

    This paper discusses the nature and practicalities of IETF attention
    to its diverse participation and to the requirement for professional
    demeanor.

NEW

   This document discusses about professional conduct and participation
   in the IETF in respect to diversity.

As a comment about the above, I kept the sentence short and avoided 
"nature and practicalities" as it may be, in my personal opinion, 
unclear to an average reader.  Please feel free to edit it as you 
might be able to find something better than what I suggested.

>My own inclination was (and is) to rely on the table of contents to lay
>that out, if the reader cannot wait to read the text that follows.

Ok.

> > In the Introduction Section:
> >
> >   'through the IETF's "Nomcom" process.  Nomcom is itself a potentially
> >    diverse group of IETF participants, chosen almost at random.'
> >
> > If Nomcom is as described above the following should not be an issue:
> >
> >   "In spite of their engineering a disproportionately high
> >    number of female candidates, not a single one was selected."
>
>Please explain your basis for asserting that.

If a group is diverse it would likely have some female members.  The 
fact that there wasn't any women selected could mean:

   (i)  There isn't any diversity problem with the group

   (ii) There was a diversity problem and that explains why
        no woman was selected.

>Note, in particular, that the latter quotation cites an objective fact
>of what actually happened.  It's reporting, not analysis.

Yes.  However, the document might be saying (i) or (ii).


> > Quoting text from the draft:
> >
> >   "Hence its problematic choices -- or rather, omissions -- could be seen
> >    as reflecting IETF culture generally."
> >
> > That could be viewed as meaning that the IETF culture tends to favor
> > "well-funded, American, white, male engineers".
>
>You are taking a description of the early days of the Arpanet research
>community and applying it to current IETF operations.  The draft never
>makes nor intends that linkage, particularly since the current
>population of IETF attendees is quite different from the early Arpanet days.

That is the linkage which the average reader will do.

> > The current IESG
> > members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html  There are
> > three female members.  The female members are well-funded, American and
> > white.  Is it the opinion of the authors that "much diversity" is about
> > the male and female question only?
>
>The draft offers, implies and intends no such opinion.

Ok.

>For example:
> > Section 2.1 mentions several other
> > variables.  However, the rest of the draft does not contain any
> > discussion about those variables.
>
>The draft is intended to focus on the importance of variety.  It does that.
>
>The draft is not intended to be a general tutorial about the vast array
>of distinguishable attributes that might describe a person or a group.

Ok.

> > The title of the draft is "An IETF with Much Diversity and Professional
> > Conduct".  Section 2.2 is about professional conduct.  Section 3 and
> > Section 4 are about participation.  I suggest following a "participation
> > and professional conduct" angle as the content of the draft does not
> > discuss about economic status or demographics.
>
>I do not understand what changes you are proposing, nor the problems
>with the draft that these would fix.  Please be specific.

What I meant was that the draft's title has "much diversity while one 
example in the draft is about women; the harassment as discussed in 
the IETF has been mainly about sexual harassment.  I don't think that 
it would be fair to ask the authors of this draft to discuss the 
other problems.  I'll say ok to the above.

> > From Section 3.2:
> >
> >   "Once content is accessible, the challenge is to garner diverse
> >    contribution for further development.  Engagement means that it easy
> >    for constructive participants to be heard and taken seriously through
> >    constructive interaction."
> >
> > Engagement is about reaching out to a wider group and getting wider
> > input.  The above explains it as "making it easy for existing
> > participants who may be able to deliver constructive contributions".
>
>You are focusing on externally-oriented engagement.

Yes.

>The text is meant to cover both external and internal, though the 'to be
>heard' has a clear focus on internal.  That is, folks already attempting
>to participate.

This is where the question of the target audience (of the draft) 
arises.  Is it for people familiar with the IETF or is it for a wider 
audience?  For the latter, people will likely read "engagement" as 
meaning what I described as externally-oriented engagement.

> > Section 5 is about security considerations.  How would the IETF be
> > affected if it is no longer viewed as:
> >
> >   (a) a credible open venue
> >
> >   (b) a credible productive venue
> >
> >   (c) a venue where there is diversity
>
>Please offer specific text.

The above points are based on the following text in the draft:

   "The security of the IETF's role in the Internet community depends
    upon its credibility as an open and productive venue for
    collaborative development of technical documents."

It is up to the authors to address those points.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy