Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 26 February 2021 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7209E3A0AB8; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:30:56 -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=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufWOqHXCvtut; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:30:53 -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 511FF3A0ACB; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:30:21 -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 B9261280615; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 04:30:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <LO2P265MB057322BA95B1B44D4175356BC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 01:29:56 -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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 04:30:57 -0000

Hi, Rich,

On 25/2/21 20:49, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> When you're changing the way of contributing, you're not
>> universally
> "reducing the barrier". -- certainly not for somebody that does't do
> git.
> The IETF has not changed the way people contribute.  Drafts are still
> posted to the datatracker, mailing lists still exist for feedback and
> comment (and must be used for confirming consensus, etc).  Just
> because there are more paths into the datatracker now.  I mean,
> probably around 1985-1995 we all just FTP'd the documents we wanted
> to read.  Is anyone going to argue that it's not easier now?

Based on some comments it seems that in some cases a significant 
fraction of the discussion moved to github. Hence my question.
In such a case, participants are kind of required to participate in github.

I didn't participate much (if at all) in the recommendations regarding 
the use of github in the ietf. And my assumtion was that for the most 
part it was more of a "use it if deemed useful", but was assuming the 
discussions that would lead to changes to remain in the mailing-lists.

>> Point taken. So... mailing list are seen as a problematic mechanism
>> to
> carry our work?
> For some people I think the answer is yes.  It seems that overall use
> of email is declining, but it's hard to get real numbers without
> getting tangled up in email marketing newsletter business.  But I
> feel like you keep trying to have me make blanket assertions and I
> don't want to do that.

No, no. It was a honest question. Me I wasn't aware about some of the 
assumptions that were mentioned in the thread... hence my questions.

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