Re: [Diversity] IETF Culture

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 17 March 2016 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D028812D57F for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=bu5iYiHV; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=resistor.net header.b=rsiNAZVH
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33tQamMjUIYu for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8363012D574 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2HLEr9o025007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1458249300; x=1458335700; bh=lE5tMr24losDNIl4hnd8vs28vvjVCGAOwx0ZTLmkoSU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=bu5iYiHVEggrxgs5D78HOR/GXlS/ErVrFATI16dxhnuh6KZfORD82VSPIu0PYhe5T 47zCzf9xtyMuQky/C96ecx9pymTdMH95T6w5JiZMw6DQEfwSU6rNYspJC5W2PcTruV K4SzRwBR52F1+A9TDIPb9WqASWVJbBEvv9RWBJ8w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1458249300; x=1458335700; i=@resistor.net; bh=lE5tMr24losDNIl4hnd8vs28vvjVCGAOwx0ZTLmkoSU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=rsiNAZVHkaP30MKJmQPE2Sc1KeAfQ88fWz7grS1xtNwn7AaIG3aBdXK3gxoWcoo41 8YUF14xssA+YGIL1yiMnsY5Gdfqb3itO6jth+MrGETIE/UN75ZUxQ6AhtOH0MVkyt9 zNz5WJNMgenaRHVIQskbwGj8nD9x+Nj2qjdU6U8I=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160317101512.0f39fed0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:02:54 -0700
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, diversity@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <56C626D3.2040405@comcast.net>
References: <99085F2E3228C28C99AB062A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56C267D8.5010505@gmail.com> <56C28F22.1000705@comcast.net> <20160218025414.GM66257@mx2.yitter.info> <56C556A5.8090202@comcast.net> <20160218144138.GB100@mx2.yitter.info> <m27fi13ii8.wl%randy@psg.com> <56C626D3.2040405@comcast.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/sasSC5KaKs2XwjTpkkcVQhhJpGM>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] IETF Culture
X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <diversity.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diversity/>
List-Post: <mailto:diversity@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:15:11 -0000

Hi Mike,

[Following up on another mailing list to reduce ietf@ mailing list traffic]

At 13:17 18-02-2016, Michael StJohns wrote:
>I'm going to go off on a tangent.  This is only peripherally related 
>to the other topic.
>
>One of the other things that comes up with the IETF from time to 
>time is how to make the IETF more open and welcoming to newcomers. 
>The IETF has a *lot* of unwritten rules - perhaps more than most 
>organizations. *IMHO*, that may make it more difficult for newcomers 
>to figure out how things work and where they can push or pull to 
>effect change - there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that this may be 
>the case.  I would also tend to believe that written rules with 
>plain meanings (that are mostly followed) tend to level the playing 
>field for those just joining.
>
>(A quick google search - "written vs unwritten rules newcomers" 
>finds 
>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/battah-workplace-rules-1.3274856 
>for example - there are a lot of others in this space)
>
>So I'm not so sure that the above is a universal truth.    Both you 
>and Andrew (and me FWIW) are long term participants and tend to know 
>where the levers are.  I wonder if those just joining us would agree?

A rule is defined as "one of a set of explicit or understood 
regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a 
particular area of activity" [1].  I agree that written rules with 
plain meanings tend to level the playing field for those who are not 
long term participants.  A procedure would have to be explicit if it 
is expected that all participants understand it.  This entails 
documenting the procedure so that any participant can learn about the rule.

One of the definitions of "culture" is "the ideas, customs, and 
social behaviour of a particular people or society" 
[2].  The  "unwritten rules" in what is written above could be read 
as: the IETF has a lot of customs.  An interesting point in the link 
is "just because someone has been around, doesn't necessarily mean 
they can sort through the subtleties of [the] culture".

A person who has just joined can bring in a fresh perspective.  Do 
those customs encourage that?  Are all those customs relevant today?

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rule
2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/culture