Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 25 February 2021 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708AA3A0B1D; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:17:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBeV-hbv7ljA; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:17:55 -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 C75513A0B13; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:17:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:a449:5f08:346f:44bd] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:a449:5f08:346f:44bd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42C2F280A0D; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: Eric Rescorla <>, "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Marc Petit-Huguenin <>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB057322BA95B1B44D4175356BC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 18:16:44 -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: 8bit
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:18:00 -0000

On 25/2/21 17:49, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>     The rationale is that there are millions of people using GitHub, and
>     if do documents with their toolchain, we will get more feedback from
>     developers than if we tried to draw them into our toolchain.  I
>     didn't realize that was what you were asking me.  This rationale was
>     stated multiple times in the GIT WG.
> FWIW, my impression of the situation is the same as Rich's.

Using the same toolchain, per se, doesn't seem like a rationale (note, 
I'm *not* challenging whether it was effective in your experience, but 
why rather why it was expected ot make a difference).

> I can say 
> with confidence that when TLS decided to adopt Github it was because we 
> had seen that it worked well in H2. With that said, I do think it made 
> it easier for people to get involved, in part because it was easy to 
> offer small changes without subscribing to a list, etc.

Ok, so this seems to imply that part of the thing is that subcribing to 
the mailing-lists is seen as part of the problem.

What about e.g. the archives for the discussions, for future reference? 
Is expected to take on that role?

> It certainly made it easier to accept such contributions.

Certainly this kind of think may make the life of some easier, and the 
life of others more painful. But there *is* an implied tradeoff here. 
It's not a win-win thing.

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