Re: [ericas] Western, individualist conception of things (was: A suggestion for the Tao of the IETF)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,
At 22:15 21-06-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>While we are patting each other on the back, thanks to SM for 
>introducing me to
>Ines Robles who is now doing a fine job as working group secretary 
>for the ROLL
>working group in the IETF even while still learning about the IETF.

I'll copy this message to Ines. :-)

>At the same time, if you ask one of the old-time US participants 
>about where to
>hold IETF meetings, they will pretty much always whine about the pain and cost
>of travel to locations outside of North America (but will put up 
>with Europe if
>it is a good tourist location at a nice time of year). So, they *do* 
>understand
>some (not all) of the pain of travel, but have a problem with projection and
>empathy :-) Not surprising as a large percentage of the IETF are on 
>the autistic
>spectrum!!

Yes.

>But, while thanking me is great, I also think you should be telling me I don't
>do enough. Yes, I have tried to push this issue hard in the four years I have
>been an AD.  But, it is clear to me that this is not enough.

I only ask for the impossible.  As you have been able to do that I 
cannot say that you don't do enough. :-)

>The rise in Chinese participation is a great success story. But is it clear to
>me that this was driven just as much by industry in China being determined to
>become a world player, than it was in any way driven by the IETF 
>becoming a more
>welcoming place. Maybe the *effectiveness* of Chinese participation 
>was improved

Yes.

>by a number of people working hard in the IETF to provide education. Yet where
>is the participation from Africa and South America? Why don't we see that?

There are a number of people in the IETF who have worked hard to 
bring in participants from China.  However, participation from China 
is not as effective as it could be.

This is a guess.  I would not consider all the countries of South 
America as similar.  I expected more participation from South 
America.  Most of the people from emerging regions I spent time with 
were from South America.  I think that they can do a lot more within 
the IETF.  My rough guess is that the IETF might have been trying to 
solve the problem the wrong way.  I don't know the right 
way.  Participation from Africa is depressing.  If the IETF keep 
getting the wrong people it is not possible to do anything.

>Actually, ISOC reports to me that a run-on from the ISOC policy 
>fellows program.
>Apparently there are some moves from African nations who sent policy fellows a
>few meetings ago (Paris, I think) to send engineers to the next few 
>meetings. I
>don't kid myself this is more than a trickle, but one does have to start
>somewhere.

It's not going to work. :-)

>The things that I am unable to help with are the things where I 
>don't know what
>the problems are, and where I don't know what would help. I am going to guess
>that holding an IETF in Cape Town would not be significantly easier for
>participants from Morocco than an IETF in Paris. I am also going to guess that

Yes.

>an IETF in Israel would not be a great help for participants from Libya. But I

Yes. :-)

>am also going to make the bold statement that physical participation 
>should not
>be our primary goal on day one (of course it would be wonderful and remains a
>long-term aim). I want to work out how we raise awareness of the IETF, and how
>we get people to start to participate via the mailing lists.

There was a message from Thomas Narten to the diversity mailing 
list.  I read it again yesterday and realized that I missed what he 
was saying.  I think that there is part of what you would like to see 
in that message. I do not have a plan.  The rough idea itself is very 
risky and has a very low probability of success.

>A real dream would be to have an IETF working group formed entirely out of
>remote participation (which would completely facilitate people in *any*
>country). People post Internet-Drafts; there is a mailing list for 
>discussions;
>a good consensus is built; the AD forms a working group; RFCs are published.

The working group I am involved in did a variation of the above.  We 
avoided physical participation as far as possible.  It's an unusual 
case though.

>There is  zero reason why this should not happen. So what are we missing for
>this? Answer: we lack active remote participants, and in particular, we lack
>remote participants with pressing requirements that need to be solved and a
>willingness/ability to articulate those problems.

Yes.

>Tell me please: what would it take? why doesn't this happen?  Is it lack of
>awareness/education about the IETF?  Is it lack of technical skills?  Is it
>because all the problems are actually being solved anyway?  Are there barriers
>of language?

There would have to be people who are committed to do the 
work.  There would have to be working group chairs who you can blame 
when the work is not being done.  There would have to be Area 
Directors who I can fire when their working groups do not deliver the 
work they are supposed to do.  It is a lack of accountability.  It is 
because the technical skills are not fully utilized.  There is a 
language barrier even though we are both writing in English.

All the problems are not being solved.  We don't admit failure; we 
call it a success.  If you have to spend four years trying hard to 
push an issue something is not right.

>And please tell me what else is needed? Perhaps the way to look at this is to
>draw up a wish-list and to try to order it by things that would make most
>difference. Given that each new thing or process change costs (in 
>terms of time,
>effort, and reduction in lifespan) it is worth us taking the time to pick off
>the most valuable things first (although it may also be worth the time to pick
>off low-hanging fruit as well).

I like the idea of writing a list of things we would like to have and 
ordering the list by what would make the most difference.  Somebody 
would have to pick the low-hanging fruit as his/her 
priority.  Somebody would have to pick off the most valuable things 
first.  I would not list getting more participation from emerging 
regions as the most valuable thing.  After thinking about it for a 
minute I would order the pick off the most interesting thing 
first.  I cannot think of anything interesting at the moment.  Maybe 
I could pick the real dream (see above).

Your message is interesting.  I will read it again.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy