Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Stephen Farrell <> Sat, 27 February 2021 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E06D3A0935 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 06:54:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n_zCCQ5KoLCJ for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 06:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90E713A0927 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 06:53:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6322DBE24; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:53:56 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jl_P7SXfKIwX; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:53:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CC62BE1C; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:53:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1614437634; bh=9qWM8nzAZxyuV6teyHxdZt3eegjRFHfpVbHenGi+Mlc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pacyCxZjDfNzJtHo7tLo1woqvJmVKIKgksGnMaWS2z7aVndVbW0lQu7zg+CD7+ma8 E1rT6Ri4BriqIsfxQ65THEKaelIA/ejUaNKugzqMi/y7u16f2GRQk/ne854zni/Ttk gQK9dGGRjG14l1MHLzU/QNIB/2KnzjijSb85P/2Q=
To: Martin Thomson <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB057322BA95B1B44D4175356BC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:53:52 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0WP8SMYKQLVN48frTdvQ9tkbhjn21IKec"
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: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 14:54:04 -0000


I'm generally fine with use of github, and agree with Martin
that we're learning and need to learn more how to handle that
better, esp. wrt managing discussion on mailing lists vs. in
github issues. One point though...

On 27/02/2021 11:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
> And the suggestion that this is, or even might be, inherently
> exclusionary is one I just don't see.
I think it can be exclusionary but I'd not say "inherently"
though. If one has a bunch of people in similar TZs who are
all happy working via github issues then that can very easily
exclude participants who prefer working via the mailing list
who are not in a close enough TZ. I've experienced that when
it results in dozens of github notification emails only a few
of which are human readable, the net result of which is that
the discussion has moved on before excluded participants had
a chance to contribute and/or where it's too much work to
try extract the real discussion from the notification chaff.

I'd say it'd be good to try experiment with ways to bring
the mailing list back into discussion in such situations
whenever there's an "interesting" flurry of github exchanges
that seems to come to resolution amongst those active on
github. It's probably unrealistic for WG chairs to spot all
such events, so would depend on participants themselves who
want to be inclusive like that.