Re: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF

<> Fri, 15 July 2016 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B1D12D788 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 SR1fw1YQQFZT for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B54E12D796 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1468588056; bh=RYhDn9xx1JL8/+sa7xH8RL+y6kcT7E6dZcEsZRvEuZY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=ecnk3hv1yRyB1Uts9e9QkD8gtQN0CPph3Di+49epOLhhXjuq4ZLHj6Oe7ICAHrZsazn76YHkvj2mlW4Ei0jR6vD0DkiY5DW4jGaGbA9Jjg4h1P4/Ti1BFvDT1kdAdMY/kAg0D9kImcFlgVnaRuOJzl0BQ7jFhQW6td/G0zYMk/SRkjNZMR3i1GlDcJCJsochDZ62UVIphjrDYFyM5uS3m6iR9ylcVEjeNlMqDnOd+MKpvozFNJ18g6LXQNiy2oM2BztkTaCBk7GJeZ10P/jndT5Pe5tAxCtLdZT+IywBDnHwShHgLilVm/+XH/MnTlan7HBfSx0NfSyshnu5KQTgVg==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2016 13:07:36 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2016 13:04:48 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2016 13:03:48 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2016 13:03:48 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: jeTk0NsVM1k_Xix_zfZZSFtXl_JA_eReGTx_HIQQ_4e9Oj_lCLNvnM1PtET5Ydb vmjVkuUmcXF7gKWWRmvqflI.QpNgyST.PiGiGU40jiE4iVh1fO92LOcuUFFj5P3hy9ztQ.UqYGET kCLAsQ53ReTJJ.pzuv1GIrsQn_sLUaFeM8iIExcQUKg_hVr2SUogj8bZAwzr5WA5RaCr3w2GW.W0 T839cT7Cq60VqVv4ZvxuIHdrsjHSHFDJDE2WaPxdQcxLHIxwcmuevbi.6V6c1.CICKPytVAhfBnC kx18NxaM0MM1INimBwa6zXRW4JNokmNz1YWyef_7t.6gpdrPOwnc2fWldIhiyMjeWQ1oVk7x8XE4 trXXlXGI9ybHhvLd5zhLbmX7aBfmzgKxkJ2g2uX1CTyYWXv1ByH7J7eo1VVZqFZTdUSbi8GCkEyZ 50PhJqlAxbyEQoYujb7szIrHjmlGpasGxA7kmZL8G__lY.v7IwCcuIR7kW66nqFrkS3.0y9q6pu6 Rkzza.dVicVdKk8.OlKZkzw2pVQssAAgX8z3_..pmU.ll7MfmXZUw
Received: from by; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:03:48 +0000; 1468587828.140
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:03:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:07:42 -0000

At 13:18 14-07-2016, wrote:
>>I am going to say that IETF@IETF.ORG is a somewhat special 
>>case.   Some of us in the U.S. (and I count myself among them!) feel 
>>quite free to voice our opinions on all kinds of topics.   We take 
>our freedom of speech seriously!   I know I feel sometimes that I 
>>should probably "cool it" and go write some code instead of spouting 
>>off on the IETF@IETF.ORG list.  So, I suppose there may be some 
>>cultural issues here.

>There was a time where I would use the words "culture issues" as a 
>description.  From what I read there are different national concepts 
>about it.  In some parts of the IETF it is known that 
>subscribers take freedom of speech seriously.

>I'll quote some text from an IESG discussion:

 >  "It is in the nature of the IETF to be intimidating to non engineers or to
 >   less qualified engineers.  Feeling intimidated because one is ignorant and
 >   where nobody is trying to do harm is something that is ok. Trying to intimidate
 >   is not ok, attempting to intimidate because someone is young, old, etc. is not
 >   ok, but that was already stated."

>And from an IETF mailing list:

 >  "For Example, Native English speakers may think that they are best 

 >  contributors but they are wrong, because people chosen the language to be used > with no smart reason."

>Would it be better that you and I have a conversation or would it be 
>better if I agree with your opinion?

Please, let's have a conversation.   I am quite interested in your thoughts.  Is using "cultural issues" too broad a term or somehow offensive?  I would like to learn what is better to use or how to talk about this.   I really was not meaning to be offensive.