Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 25 February 2021 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708AA3A0B1D; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:17:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBeV-hbv7ljA; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (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 fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42C2F280A0D; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <3c2d646d-f18d-4d88-b458-29dbd486432b@beta.fastmail.com> <446A8D6B-E624-49E0-B67E-D1F8AFC794E2@lastpresslabel.com> <28ac1e86-f641-b9e8-0f61-6ff442feaa90@si6networks.com> <LO2P265MB057322BA95B1B44D4175356BC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <b24ce0e9-8912-12b1-af8a-6024ae83288f@si6networks.com> <25E1B1D5-E8F1-4053-A1E0-6B2948577E84@akamai.com> <3a8dca6d-0aca-d578-0f7a-3f68e2811bad@si6networks.com> <9FBF7792-8507-45F2-B06C-2173BCDF7D4C@akamai.com> <4fc62af0-cbf0-c923-5e24-fc0dfc1de996@si6networks.com> <B8DDE7D2-0105-45D5-93FB-34FF8561D888@akamai.com> <d5854cb1-ff93-6284-5106-93dd8a06f6f1@si6networks.com> <F758F440-55ED-44DE-A613-C19C3BE14160@akamai.com> <CABcZeBMutHGPKyAS+Apq-zAUjXRcpfEvAGPDuB6oejGkfkEtCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <b478aa64-43cd-e0f7-1913-974f7c8a191b@si6networks.com>
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: <CABcZeBMutHGPKyAS+Apq-zAUjXRcpfEvAGPDuB6oejGkfkEtCw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2EX1ElbnQE7i79nYIGSxgzZvKXw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=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 github.com 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.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492