Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and the IETF

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

At the risk of going off topic for both lists, I have a few comments below:
On 11-Jul-23 00:59, Andrew Campling wrote:
> (Changing the subject line to reflect a broadening of the topic)
> 
> The IETF community has a diversity problem, whether that is terms of more obvious categories like gender, ethnicity or geographic origin, or in terms of diversity of thought and experience.  In addition to policy makers, we appear to lack people such as CISOs and others in the end-user community, have pretty limited involvement from civil society, even a relative dearth of network operators etc.  This is a problem because I firmly believe that a diverse community is more likely to make better standards.

Yes, in the abstract, but it all depends on what kind of diversity we achieve.

> 
> Whilst it is true that the IETF is open, there are more than a few unintended barriers to entry, coupled with what is perceived by some as an adversarial culture that deters participation [1].  

However, if what we want is the best technical solution (i.e., avoiding absurd diplomatic compromises like the two different OSI network layers or the 48 byte ATM cell size), the adversarial approach and the *rough* consensus model that it requires are actually desirable.

> Note for example the relatively high percentage of people that only participate in a single in-person meeting – some of these may well be taking advantage of the meeting being held in their home town but the numbers are nevertheless high.
> 
> Because of the relatively homogenous nature of the community, while I agree that we need to be sure that people are clear they are attending as individuals, making efforts to proactively reach out beyond the tech sector in order to diversify our participant base seems to me to be an entirely reasonable thing to do (hence my involvement in EODIR).  

Whether it's reasonable depends on the type of diversity we seek. This is an engineering organisation and its outputs are engineering documents. I'd strongly welcome engineers from a wider range of countries and user communities (as an example, at the last IETF a document I'm working on got extremely valuable input from the National Marine Electronics Association). There are of course good reasons why we might want more input from (and output to) public policy people, rights advocates, sustainability experts, law enforcement people, even sigint people, but it needs to be input that has engineering relevance. The day we lose engineering focus will be the day that the IETF becomes a waste of space. That's why we also need to divert discussion to ISOC (or elsewhere) when it ceases to be an engineering discussion.

Regards
    Brian

> We can avoid any suggestion of one group being given precedence by broadening the outreach to encompass others, the exact targeting could potentially be a topic for the next EODIR meeting if the co-chairs agree.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> [1] Cath-Speth, C, 2021, “/Changing Minds and Machines: A Case Study of Human Rights Advocacy in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)”/, Oxford Internet Institute
> 
> *From:*Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 10, 2023 7:56 AM
> *To:* John Levine <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Gendispatch] Updated draft: Policy experts are IETF stakeholders
> 
> So,
> 
> Speaking with no hats,
> 
> I have deep concern about starting to state explicitly that any group of people are welcome, because the instant you do that, it has implications that some people aren’t welcome.  The IETF works on the principle that people participate in their individual capacities.  The way I have always viewed this is that, if people have something to contribute, let them contribute, the email lists are open, and the mic lines do not restrict who can stand up and have their voice heard.
> 
> When we start saying “Policy makers are welcome” – what follows?  Do we start to single out other groups of people in further documents? The reality is that anyone who can provide meaningful contributions to documents is – and should continue to be – welcome, and I feel that the moment you start to single out one group over another, it opens a door that is probably best left shut and creates a potentially very slippery slope. We potentially create a situation where all are equal, but some are more equal than others.  That cannot happen, it would be disastrous in my opinion.
> 
> I wish to draw attention to Section 2 of the IETF TAO, which states:
> 
> “The IETF welcomes all interested individuals: IETF participants come from all over the world and from many different parts of the Internet industry.”
> 
> Further to this – RFC3935 (Section 1) states:
> 
> Open process - any interested person can participate in the work,
> 
>        know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the
> 
>        issue.
> 
> As such – I believe that we have already stated that the stakeholders are those who participate, and the participation is open to all, and no group should be given precedence over any other group.  And while I do not believe that the intention of the authors of this document intends to give anyone precedence, I have concern that the adoption of this document could unintentionally do exactly that – by implication.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> **
> 
> Internal All Employees
> 
> *From: *Gendispatch <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of John Levine <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 27 June 2023 at 22:59
> *To: *[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gendispatch] Updated draft: Policy experts are IETF stakeholders
> 
> It appears that Vittorio Bertola  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> said:
>>you will encounter people who are not "policy experts", but just want to bring the view of some stakeholders and ensure that their needs are
>>considered. In other words, not all people participate because of their policy-making skills or experience; some just participate because
>>they have a stake in the topic. This is why I would steer away from words like expert or specialist if possible.
> 
> Well, OK, but I would also want to be clear that policy experts are welcome,
> policy lobbyists less so.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgendispatch&data=05%7C01%7CAndrew.Alston%40liquidtelecom.com%7C0058f560743e4c0962b108db7748f6bc%7C687926120f0e46cbb16afcb82fd80cb1%7C0%7C0%7C638234927496446764%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uM5mA7g2UySTSHD6Y%2FiuSSapor3A25ScNM06DK5%2FWyU%3D&reserved=0 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>
> 
>