Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 28 January 2021 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15DF3A15D6 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:55:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xCM8beouk5Pc for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:55:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A318F3A15D3 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:18e2:60b8:efab:c3f2] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:18e2:60b8:efab:c3f2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 660D7283976; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:55:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections
To: "Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <>, Terry Manderson <>
Cc: "" <>, "Livingood, Jason" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:23:47 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
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, 28 Jan 2021 15:55:32 -0000

On 28/1/21 11:34, Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> Generally agree with Fernando, but I would like to focus on a 
> different take : there is a danger to focus on "diversity" for its 
> own sake, and people tend to hang their particular view of diversity 
> there (race, gender, country, religion, sexual orientation...).

Indeed. That's why I've asked what, specifically, people mean when they
talk about "diversity".

> If not which subset ? why ?). Again not
> sure there is a "good" solution. I don't think this is productive. I
> think we should focus instead on the goals we want to reach for IETF,
> and try to understand first what the problem is today in terms of 
> obstacles to produce relevant standards for the world (PS, anyone ?).
> It should not be about people's communities or feelings, unless this
> brings something specific and related to IETF goals to the table.

For the most part, my argument has been that if there's going to be an 
effort about diversity, then, given that the IETF is a global 
organization, the approach to the topic should also be from a global 
perspective. And if for some reason that's not an interesting project to 
pursue, it would be better to simply acknowledge that upfront, and move on.

FWIW, I would hope for some version of the former.  But the later is 
probably still better than pretending that one is addressing a broad and 
complex issue, when that's not the case. (I also think that you only 
really address the problem when you tackle the underlying issues -- as 
opposed to simply focus on ticking boxes (like quotas)).

Just my two cents,
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492