Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)

Abdussalam Baryun <> Wed, 20 April 2016 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A39012DB1A for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JQTJdQ2bA4Pm for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84BB912F087 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c6so30665343qga.1 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=KJ4/SQVf9qc3dtiqh+zXq4A/cxXeQetZcScv/xK87n4=; b=J133L66SI6RYGUedLhFPjjJsJKbLPRwJn02GUImNQXV5sE7tRAEnQKkAyS2LGNSMlq Pq9LscfK6qrdqOv0zn+xIU5drpd5yqpt24TGTnCCuYobaOYwK29+vFAmlF7pgvwDmfUF tAGuX72CY5zXNBc4x1OUy8pG4Men9ejFs2W/i3290knbNIWU+TolcPEUXX+i5W4LKd8G wrjVxxwwLkDTVisCDJZDKac1b0iI9k/7UMtFtmyEWPNq2DXc0hnasr2CG/Jkh3eR0FYt Br/C7eJCDK+JwCKkxEIOEPWO3qyJEuMmcWLIscYtL4JIfB6XNMBqKG0jDtakbYRAc8T+ 0jig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=KJ4/SQVf9qc3dtiqh+zXq4A/cxXeQetZcScv/xK87n4=; b=Q7LtpJL7BNv74O3M5zQM+tmtPKuez0wc1pw6fWgDnjWvuSiuVv753FVHphVMQZ8W56 TB/qO7mJh/mbmIqFVV/ToOf/GIxvT60Nnb9Q92CgP3RkkPpN9pCLo9dgq6ysrHfOTZHW jBFusno9ZVrNUwOXjorW3jan/0ospO28UwAo1/MaIngxzbKN92XzdpRvMwZeTGqubYr4 Ny+Wwlwn0EqL1HAHKPbIO/jfMdT9P7YdjcuzWkUCaNMdeNalYnudfD7kevieb1bi/aw4 ukDxf1KAvL7SvQfg2moQa/FFDBwgI4SVHm9YVtpV8LSJydN+MaX1FwZHWKZr7w/BCTiT L0mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUV5oBUs9uO57wCHVbAc6r/vWtuQPJ5AM8xY+pTWDivBNWY+w2t22U/xqOymUU7Ga7MH+g/zABhDdL7Fg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id p126mr12300979qhp.71.1461166275618; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:31:15 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: Nalini Elkins <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b31b2d0f4a10530ec48e1
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Hui Deng <>, Dhruv Dhody <>, "" <>, Christian O'Flaherty <>, Alvaro Retana <>, SM <>, Vinayak Hegde <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work (was: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration)
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:39:42 -0000

Hi Nalini,

Even though I am participating for long but still see that I am new, just
because I don't attend meetings or did not write a draft that got
acceptance. Yes we need a mentor in MANET WG, I think many need that. This
group is dynamic or mobile, but I still participate, I hope I get a mentor
participating, I asked the AD before but we did not find. Mainly we (new
participants) need a mentor in the IETF general Area, because it is a
difficult group as well, you can see when you discuss on the IETF list you
see it is a disaster. However, I think with your team and help we can solve
many issues.


On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, <> wrote:

> >Thanks alot. I had a great mentor (mentoring remotely) in 2013. I had
> started in IETF discussions remotely from about 4 or 5 years (before the
> mentoring program) it was a disaster but I >kept good discussions. The
> problem I faced was that I needed a mentor that is a participant in the WG
> I am working in and I found that the best practical solution is having
> mentors per WG >not per region. However, I am happy we have mentors per
> region which is good and I will work that we have mentors per WG as well. I
> hope the IETF general area looks into this issue as >well.
> We DO have mentors per WG.   When we get a mentee who expresses interest
> in a certain WG, then I ask mentors if they can help for that WG.
>  I think the confusion may be that we are still developing our remote
> mentoring.  I feel that remote mentoring is probably best done via the
> Internet Draft Review Teams & such initiatives.  We have tried individual
> remote mentor / mentees before & it was not very successful.
> If you need a mentor for a particular WG, please email me directly & I
> will see if I can find one.
> Nalini
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, <> wrote:
> >Thanks for your email. My opinion is that the IETF needs to work harder
> on these issues. IMHO, the problem is mainly that mentors are still in few
> numbers, and the IETF needs to look >into the IETF culture or better to say
> their WG culture. I recommend we need one or two mentors for each WG, so
> the mentor MUST not be the Chair or AD, the mentor MUST be a >participant
> in that WG (better if he/she was a Chair before).
> Abdussalam, thanks for your comments.  As head of the IETF Mentoring Team,
> we actually have quite a few mentors.   In fact, far more mentors than
> mentees.  Also, if we need mentors from a particular Working Group, I ask
> the WG and people are very generous with their time.   (For which, I thank
> everyone!)
> Are you speaking of remote mentors or regional mentors?
> What would you like the mentoring program to do?   We welcome suggestions!
> Nalini
> IETF Mentoring Team
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, SM <> wrote:
> Hi Nalini,
> At 12:50 18-04-2016, wrote:
> I wonder if there has not been more participation in active IETF work
> before from other regions because there was no structured way to start
> participating and language insensitivity.  (BTW, there is a new member of
> the Mentoring Team from Latin America, that I met in Buenos Aires who will
> translate the Mentoring emails into Spanish.)
> Attendance figures were used as a substitute for Participation figures.
> The IETF Community did not show much interest in doing anything about
> that.  A few years ago, an IAOC Chair posted the following to justify the
> meeting policy:
> There wasn't any formal effort (as the one you are doing) to train people
> from other regions to start participating except for the meeting training
> sessions.  A person who is not used to discussing in English faces a higher
> learning curve in comparison with someone from Australia.
> The regional mentors (in the Cc) might be able to comment about why there
> has not been more active participation before.
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list