Re: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF

S Moonesamy <> Mon, 18 July 2016 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAD312D835 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.077
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=Aq3UbGUi; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=YrSLAn7a
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOmtC_K4459f for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B230A12D82F for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6IAVqEu024398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1468837924; x=1468924324; bh=pNu6ZndI1z9qQa3Xa5LEhI2vLp9xbdzpFD7BpbLBUGg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Aq3UbGUiE/t3tEGj5xItUr8E2W8CsDvgi6zKMvfvAs2WI1QVB2JrhrPPXoBUaXVBu Sxsc7wzapvP8UmL9uyEsPNUdPn5abfPXyfisVdElsnPaGkA/3pUGq0zA521nULacSg Pkk2z7atMiIqiORvLl7RXYbk8M8kr80MuBBZlCbE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1468837924; x=1468924324;; bh=pNu6ZndI1z9qQa3Xa5LEhI2vLp9xbdzpFD7BpbLBUGg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YrSLAn7adulQrQWN9AcbCEKKxl8t8ozh58ARZMpRgwWEKUdtgOPFefNmhlDiKRwLC 3/IXX7fCkyfFXkrccAXe/f/E9Zkxh77k3OFykvLkHNIFIxUZAWkssTDV+RwgrxUMd/ Au2Gp/KzeH/6if/pwyxTpxdwg902f64g87EawLCo=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:29:49 -0700
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-iDAb8-HtLU1U7woM9YkgReLhxJDDFyGNH0kB90fis_A@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Nalini Elkins <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:32:15 -0000

Hi Abdussalam,
At 02:57 18-07-2016, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I don't understand your message, why some people don't understand or 
>some may read differently. Please explain in more so we can learn. I 
>support your idea that there are best ways of discussing between 
>different people but we need to discuss what are the best ways. 
>However, freedom in speech is not the best way of discussion, so 
>IMHO best practice in discussions is that people on ietf list know 
>that the IETF is an international organisation, and that to be 
>polite is not to be free in using English words/statements.

The less difficult way is to discuss in person as you and I can see 
whether we are understanding each other.  It is not affordable for 
everyone to do that due to the cost of travel.

The freedom of expression allows you to discuss with me by replying 
to my message.  The alternative is have the persons managing this 
mailing list decide whether you can discuss with me.

The following was recently posted to the IETF discussion list: 
If there is anything impolite, please send an email to the persons 
listed as the contact person for that problem so that the problem can 
be solved.

>In my experience on the IETF list, there are people that are not 
>polite, and no clear regulation is doing any thing clear about it. 
>That makes freedom as many like it to be. I don't mind freedom as 
>long there is a police/auditor that can take my rights. Your freedom 
>or any person's freedom must not conflict with any other person's freedom.

I agree that there may be people who are not polite.  There are 
existing rules (much more than before) to deal with that.  The police 
does not intervene unless there is a complaint.  It is similar for 
IETF discussions.  I read the IETF discussion list regularly as I am 
one of the Facilitators for that mailing list.  I did not notice any 
message which might be considered as impolite being addressed to 
you.  That does not mean that there isn't anything impolite.  Please 
do contact one or more of the persons mentioned in the link I 
provided above if you encounter a problem.

S. Moonesamy