Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Fernando Gont <> Tue, 23 February 2021 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7A33A2C92; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:48:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t2-ACm2uPYP5; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:48:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81233A2951; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:8c90:e3df:68bf:9f07] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:8c90:e3df:68bf:9f07]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28FDB28014B; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:48:12 +0000 (UTC)
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>, "''" <>, GENDISPATCH List <>, Keith Moore <>
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:20:59 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:48:23 -0000

On 23/2/21 06:51, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> I just took a quick look at the document and I missed one point that
> increasingly worries me working in the IETF, namely the increasing
> number of participants who are not interested to write any code*.

It could be the case that people are not interested, or that they don't 
have the time, or that they are not familiar with an open source project 
to contribute code. It could be any of them, and it's probably difficult 
to tell.

In some cases, whether a WG gives value to an implementation might 
encourage or discourage work on an implementation.

And then there are other things, such as:
* Each open source project has it's own culture.

* Some are very welcoming. Others not so much.

* Some will help for you to implement things, others (usually smaller) 
projects might try or want to implement stuff themselves.

And, as with other things, whether somebody has support from his/her 
employer will also have an effect -- e.g., if you have a pay job and do 
IETF stuff independently, then you probably won't have enough time to 
work on a draft and participating in the discussions, let alone 
implementing it.

Then there are other things. e.g., I once did multiple implementations 
fo a document I had co-authored, and provided pointers to the 
implementations in an appendix. One IETF participant took the time to 
ask each project to back out the commits "because the document had not 
yet become an RFC".

> I would include this aspect under diversity, particularly when
> talking about the new leadership election cycles.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this one? And what you'd like to see?

> Participating in some working groups I more and more get the
> impression to sit in a document writing class rather than in an
> Internet engineering organization.

One possible explanation is that energy is a finite resource: the more 
bureaucracy and politics involved, the lesser the time to commit to 
other things.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492