Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Tue, 23 February 2021 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
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 4D7C13A0E94; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:26:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wfsKSVnZSKG2; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:26:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 569A13A0E12; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:26:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from [10.19.48.6] ([69.166.14.2]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:26:48 -0800
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Message-Id: <0D1E168A-5FF3-4B49-918F-4A38868DAC5C@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4325FAAC-7ED1-4D98-9CC8-1F6A2AA5A18A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:26:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1fdfebbf-58ab-0f18-da53-ec06d9953c5f@gmail.com>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <AM0PR08MB37168C83CF19A3CDFEF15FD8FA809@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <1fdfebbf-58ab-0f18-da53-ec06d9953c5f@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IwYnAB-2HbEF6dS1oNnVgVwvJNA>
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: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:27:06 -0000

> On Feb 23, 2021, at 10:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, you don't mention operators, whose role is not to write code at all but whose contribution to the IETF is essential. So that's another category of "doers".

Yep.

PCH has been an active participant in the IETF for some 28 years, and we’re not a code-writing shop, we’re an operator.  We have very strong feelings about what’s needed, and we also know that we aren’t going to be the ones writing that code, we’re going to be the ones fielding it and trying to make it scale.  So, yes, we care about the success of the IETF and the open standards process and multistakeholderism, because it’s all vital to our being able to hold up our end of things.

Writing code is one critical aspect of the IETF.  Writing specifications is another critical aspect of the IETF.  Testing interoperability is yet another.  None of these stand alone, and none work without the others.

                                -Bill