Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 25 February 2021 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918193A08AA for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:44:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bMAoOgzywF92 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEA753A08B0 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o63so4610001pgo.6 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:44:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zNlUu2rLRS2DfkD0IaL9sNrOkSKAcnub/r28SpCtyQU=; b=Jx9qP65T96QuuhS+Kxug0119jnG1f4lZmQmZxncT+Wdg1hsMfH8yzrFwyiXJStxOqN 6n0I8UOWa6x3MRmdeWU4BmKjP8u/1MM0JYCB2toC2djDlPYAc4cUx7h/+b2Ua9I7uYld psQpTjUAqWr4APjf8jbtlKANCFQPefDu4RqLTft298qC1qHRiDgwZKshOWytT8QGKfQw aIHdUDbDWV2xn8U715YnplK0y7gx8aac6DLF3wA2MvWa+jYCHwcwNk7eBSRjl63RTUml uOPdqGdqxBDvpM4caN7ujvlEaHRuRgZWJopUgQGshEOoLnTT4DZv87YsEDpKChH9AwWk pzOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zNlUu2rLRS2DfkD0IaL9sNrOkSKAcnub/r28SpCtyQU=; b=d8cBlUeHEplLpGC0QxJH/o4NXMFL188vlFA3bbwthyIgltBJOOR8giVXZq9bmMC32f +VuFaJ403+wsC1SPP1qwaop5bHxxBFSOlbWUKpJ7nmsdyz6OLqrulWzE3utrornwtrVW fg+xo++uLlGvFlumy2P7W5rgkOPT2yLJIVZyO9YGLsoFmrlJ7/xVGyl6TELW4nTkAFtS q5+ZG8r/lVLLVlCwyQYU1mNjBLxujK4VQ4cGZhahaNJrbrCHS9K/mLenhJR7OeJTW8yb NuiCHg0v9HqliI/JjwG3dDI2xAhAKYExPwDptDinBO1IxQY1xaV0AIJnkO/EDRGBSLWg kXIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531RRDY0trnvgGBokAAdVgt8jCwpQYhrempZDtn2j70K7CplL/FN QLcceaXRN1y6hzu/RiCIr1fNAfya0L4ZmA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCNGq/9isOI7d77nrbPvdnwHccz5RSSnhvO9t3FPmcyhvzwR5xE2lBnRMSS0elciDcDMcRqQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:6304:0:b029:1c0:d62d:d213 with SMTP id x4-20020a6263040000b02901c0d62dd213mr4917422pfb.79.1614285872992; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id p9sm6505094pja.51.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
To: S Moonesamy <>, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:44:28 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:44:36 -0000

On 25-Feb-21 19:13, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Rifaat,
> At 04:40 AM 23-02-2021, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>> So you have never reached out to us to try to bring any work to the 
>> WG, and based on attending one meeting and hearing from a few 
>> people, you formed a strong opinion and declared that "nothing would 
>> get done"? that seems odd.
> I suggest looking at it from a different perspective.  A person who 
> is new to the IETF attends a working group session held at some 
> exotic location.  There are the usual active participants debating 
> during the session.  There isn't any significant progress on the 
> issue(s) in his/her opinion.  Would he/she commit more time to engage 
> in that working group?

That is not a simple question with a simple answer. If the person (or
their employer) has a strong interest in the topic, they will invest
the time to follow the email discussions, understand what is going on
behind the apparent lack of progress, and decide how best to engage in
and influence the conversation. Anybody with much experience in complex
debates (whether or not in SDOs) will already know that things take
time (months or years). If the person has casual interest, they may 
decide to leave the topic alone and check back a year later. Any 
choice between those two extremes is possible, depending on the case.
I've certainly chosen many points on that scale during my time
at the IETF (and the Global Grid Forum when it existed, and minor
engagements with other SDOs).

Certainly, if one is not patient, persistent and open to argument,
one will not succeed in the IETF, but that is nothing to do
with diversity and inclusiveness. How we (those already here)
treat newcomers is of course important, but that is a quite
different question from the one you asked.

We already advise newcomers to watch the discussion for a while
before contributing [1]. Perhaps that advice should be strengthened.