Re: [Diversity] Comments on draft-crocker-diversity-conduct-00

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 3/6/2014 4:11 PM, SM wrote:
>
>>
>> the system can help bring out
>> the better outcome or improve the technical quality of the work.
>>
>
> We have competing goals, competing understandings of capabilities and
> limitations, and competing proposals.  Each of these competitions is
> inherent.  So I do not believe we can avoid a fundamentally adversarial
> framework, for any "interesting" situation.


Many participants work for companies so their primary goals are their
companies goals, then they can see IETF goals. Is their diversity in
companies participating?


>
> The question is whether participants treat the competition as a basis for
> healthy debate -- where the ultimate goal is the best result for the
> community -- or whether they focus on the politics of winning.


The issue is that IETF participants are not only individually
participants volunteering but includes companies participation. So it is
not about only debate-winning nor only IETF-competition, but includes
getting some companies technologies/implementations as an IETF standard.


>
>  I'll put it differently: bring the issues into the open, manage it, and
>> choose an alternative.  The problem with an uncomfortable topic is that
>> it is not always well-managed.
>>
>
> That implies that we reliably have good management for /comfortable/
> topics...  (smiley)


The IETF management is progressing (of IETF areas and WGs), and
they may need more cooperation rules. However, management need to encourage
diversity in discussions and in reviews, that will make IETF outputs more
reliable and used worldwide.

AB/