Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 23 February 2021 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 872CD3A0B72; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:13:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Q96G1Eu8g4dv; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:13:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86C1C3A0B83; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DlQcb5HDmzyY6; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:13:35 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3eb70c22-cf12-0bd5-19d7-6ec84f8cfe4a@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:13:35 +0100
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 635793215.2317621-b4e26960341fce9e83cd26a2a89ce8fa
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <360CBC85-E91F-46A9-BF73-DB72BD7B7C95@tzi.org>
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <AM0PR08MB37168C83CF19A3CDFEF15FD8FA809@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <3eb70c22-cf12-0bd5-19d7-6ec84f8cfe4a@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NQidmXQX4CWnPogC6n30iym5DD8>
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 17:13:44 -0000

On 2021-02-23, at 16:20, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> In some cases, whether a WG gives value to an implementation might encourage or discourage work on an implementation.

Not an unimportant point.

If the perception of people bringing work is that acceptance in the IETF is mostly aleatoric, they’ll think twice before investing in an implementation before significant advancement.

This is particularly true if they already have a proprietary implementation that will need significant work before it makes all of IETF’s checkmarks.

I’m not saying anything of this is wrong or actually fixable.

Grüße, Carsten