Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Melinda Shore <> Wed, 25 May 2016 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E3E12B058 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfQQJRnMy-SV for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12FCB12D8CF for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g64so21252697pfb.2 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9a0WOdYG2H7eZXme4Afk3fuN/d7uMLPAF+PzhwtY7ks=; b=iQXcD/Z25LvcbVnrtXPI8lTnGbNK10N4nGm2R2CyIXyu1PUuZ0UL5Nk1B430j2h1Fh lYVCG31x4ua6juvBglJY0u83kxAbLTkUfSX2m55kLO4c6sujhJ7jMRH3bUa91HXCRUPt cA0M0UBuxjkOXrzWGR/H0pzJGPnHfKJIyP3mJyoTp7QzvGh8rLgjAcTsphmftNspRNn2 O2cCeHReABc5qyQXPTMIQD0yJ1ebIwAL8UwNrM/je8sJXld9Ia642fAkJOmEDSapxZ+k SJLzrg3TlfUtC38+jOKyozUqftixHNHMMIpZ1GdQ0Pu2ceanmN5CA8XownquqIkbD9x7 1syA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9a0WOdYG2H7eZXme4Afk3fuN/d7uMLPAF+PzhwtY7ks=; b=i7RBCoCAghNSG+XzkCwhw/erPROXA6++r6R88jvurG3BCSCe6D4zGwZS9PhsrZ9ce+ GhIB9WIM2aqN/IqtElBaju/6bS208zjBcjhrucH94D4imWx/8K5+9ydGvgiJZ4ytI6k2 6SZsOfKm3w0gf6prCPtgfkmNh0CyK+H22UKRLV8KSlmZtm2dOBLvOkugy8HDZ+BhVOZ6 vvNNZQMqEQm7yM0S+hVMg7cVxaW6ISvPhX3kfKNengzkcJdCBZFAn/W/a2zJ/QeRLzYX QeTdreXf9RmdwrrMGpLRvTaipeU2U9qkhyj87+tDiTztptXhMc/MK+CF1G9zgTlvKUM9 PMuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIVDAk5uXNMOpNVIInNKpHhqAuC5xaaTlWWD0fHsFNGL9rqsJMUoWOkBAo07OhUaw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q90mr7998089pfa.100.1464202292620; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id tn7sm14484089pac.29.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2016 11:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:50:49 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:51:35 -0000

I find it necessary to note that, as always, our diversity
discussion is being diverted to talk about geography.  This
happens when we talk about gender issues and it's now
happening when we're talking about sexual orientation.  I
understand it's easier, and that everybody gets to feel
valorous by taking a stand in favor of having people of all
nations participate, but it does tend to interfere with
making progress on the somewhat more difficult issues of
how to make sure that the IETF is an inclusive organization
on all axes.

Unfortunately, this pretty much guarantees that the IETF
will continue to lag other technical communities on diversity
and inclusion.  It appears to be the case that we are
fully committed to having people rise and fall on their
technical merits, and that participation is open to everybody
who can meet some basic connectivity requirements, but
that commitment seems to disintegrate every time we run
into a situation that's less clear-cut than national participation,
or that requires work/concessions/whatever.  This strikes me
as an institutional problem and not one that's very likely
to be solved by bottom-up discussion (insert canonical reference
to three wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner).