< draft-gont-diversity-analysis-00.txt   draft-gont-diversity-analysis-01.txt >
gendispatch F. Gont gendispatch F. Gont
Internet-Draft SI6 Networks Internet-Draft EdgeUno
Intended status: Informational K. Moore Intended status: Informational K. Moore
Expires: August 26, 2021 Network Heretics Expires: 31 July 2022 Network Heretics
February 22, 2021 27 January 2022
Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
draft-gont-diversity-analysis-00 draft-gont-diversity-analysis-01
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses a number of structural issues that currently This document discusses a number of structural issues that currently
hinders diversity and inclusiveness in the IETF. The issues hinders diversity and inclusiveness in the IETF. The issues
discussed in this document are non-exhaustive, but still provide a discussed in this document are non-exhaustive, but still provide a
good starting point for the IETF to establish a more comprehensive good starting point for the IETF to establish a more comprehensive
agenda to foster diversity and inclusiveness. agenda to foster diversity and inclusiveness.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 July 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Perceived Return of Investment (ROI) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Perceived Return of Investment (ROI) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Academia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Effects of Current Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Effects of Current Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles . . . . . . . . 5 6. Diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. WG Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. WG Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. NOMCOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. NOMCOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Difficulty in Joining the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Difficulty in Joining the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Economic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Finding interesting Working Groups and Areas . . . . . . 8
10. Educational Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. Difficulty in Authoring and Submitting Internet-Drafts . 9
11. Cultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.3. Contributing to Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.4. Support from Experienced Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Using email effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Economic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.3. Comfort zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Educational Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Cultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Using email effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.3. Comfort zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
15. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. DISCLAIMER 1. DISCLAIMER
For the most part, many of the topics discussed in this document are For the most part, many of the topics discussed in this document are
the result of on-list and off-list conversations with a number of the result of on-list and off-list conversations with a number of
IETF participants, and are based personal experiences of said group IETF participants, and are based personal experiences of said group
of colleagues, and what such group believes are some of the of colleagues, and what such group believes are some of the
structural problems hindering diversity in the IETF. structural problems hindering diversity in the IETF.
As such, it is very likely (and possibly guaranteed!) that there are As such, it is very likely (and possibly guaranteed!) that there are
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
This document tries to raise a number of structural issues that This document tries to raise a number of structural issues that
currently hinders diversity and inclusiveness in the IETF. The currently hinders diversity and inclusiveness in the IETF. The
issues discussed in this document are non-exhaustive, but still issues discussed in this document are non-exhaustive, but still
provide a good starting point for the IETF to establish a more provide a good starting point for the IETF to establish a more
comprehensive agenda for the IETF to address the issue of diversity comprehensive agenda for the IETF to address the issue of diversity
and inclusiveness. and inclusiveness.
We have grouped structural issues in these categories: We have grouped structural issues in these categories:
o Perceived Return of Investment (ROI) (see Section 4) * Perceived Return of Investment (ROI) (see Section 4)
o Effects of Current Participation (see Section 5) * Effects of Current Participation (see Section 5)
o Diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles (see Section 6) * Diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles (see Section 6)
o Processes (see Section 7) * Processes (see Section 7)
o Difficulty in Joining the IETF (see Section 8) * Difficulty in Joining the IETF (see Section 8)
o Economic Constraints (see Section 9) * Economic Constraints (see Section 9)
o Educational Constraints (see Section 10) * Educational Constraints (see Section 10)
o Cultural Issues (see Section 11) * Cultural Issues (see Section 11)
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
Throughout this document, whenever we refer to "diversity" or Throughout this document, whenever we refer to "diversity" or
"inclusiveness" we imply including or involving people of: "inclusiveness" we imply including or involving people of:
o a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds * a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds
o different genders * different genders
o different sexual orientations * different sexual orientations
o different countries and regions * different countries and regions
o different types of organizations (companies, non-profits, etc.) * different types of organizations (companies, non-profits, etc.)
* people who are not sponsored by or representing any organization
The above list is non-exhaustive, but should make it evident that The above list is non-exhaustive, but should make it evident that
"diversity" has multiple axes, and this document does not limit its "diversity" has multiple axes, and this document does not limit its
discussion of diversity to any particular sub-set of them. discussion of diversity to any particular sub-set of them.
4. Perceived Return of Investment (ROI) 4. Perceived Return of Investment (ROI)
While many IETF participants engage in the IETF for the sake of While many IETF participants engage in the IETF for the sake of
improving the Internet or as a personal hobby, IETF participation improving the Internet or as a personal hobby, IETF participation
involves an investment, whether participation is done independently, involves an investment, whether participation is done independently,
or supported by an organization (e.g., company). or supported by an organization (e.g., company).
As with any investment, the question of what is the return of As with any investment, the question of what is the return of
investment (ROI) is often asked both by participants and their investment (ROI) is often asked both by participants and their
supporting companies (if any). supporting companies (if any).
In the case of companies, the possible ROI will typically depend on In the case of companies, the possible ROI will typically depend on
the specific sector, but might include: the specific sector, but might include:
o Benefiting from Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) * Benefiting from Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).
o Benefiting from leading technologies, with e.g. improved "time to * Benefiting from leading technologies, with e.g. improved "time to
market" market".
In the case of independent participants, ROI could be in the form of: In the case of independent participants, ROI could be in the form of:
o being able to make a difference in improving Internet technologies * Being able to make a difference in improving Internet
technologies.
o better career opportunities * Better career opportunities.
However, these benefits can only be realized by a small subset of However, these benefits can only be realized by a small subset of
companies and participants. For example, in order for companies to companies and participants. For example, in order for companies to
benefit from IPRs and improved time-to-market of products, they need benefit from IPRs and improved time-to-market of products, they need
to be in the business of manufacturing such specific products. In to be in the business of manufacturing such specific products. In
order cases, companies might deem the ROI of IETF participation as order cases, companies might deem the ROI of IETF participation as
negligible. negligible.
In the case of independent participants, the ability to realize In the case of independent participants, the ability to realize
better career opportunities generally depends on the availability of better career opportunities generally depends on the availability of
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 5, line 9
that benefit from IETF participation essentially means that IETF that benefit from IETF participation essentially means that IETF
participation and the associated skills will result in a negligible participation and the associated skills will result in a negligible
ROI for independent participants. And, when processes are biased ROI for independent participants. And, when processes are biased
towards a specific community, even the possibility of improving the towards a specific community, even the possibility of improving the
Internet "for the common good" might seem unfeasible. Internet "for the common good" might seem unfeasible.
As a result of this, there is a whole range of individuals and As a result of this, there is a whole range of individuals and
organizations for which IETF participation might not result organizations for which IETF participation might not result
attractive or feasible: attractive or feasible:
o Individuals from developing countries * Individuals from developing countries
o Service- and consulting-oriented companies
o Un-affilieted open source developers * Service- and consulting-oriented companies
o Operators * Unaffiliated open source developers
o Universities * Operators
* Academia
That said, there is always the case of individuals and/or companies That said, there is always the case of individuals and/or companies
that might still try engage in the IETF. However, other issues, such that might still try engage in the IETF. However, other issues, such
as those discussed in Section 5, Section 6 and Section 9 typically as those discussed in Section 5, Section 6 and Section 9 typically
discourage such participation. discourage such participation.
The following subsections discuss the specific realities of some of
these communities.
4.1. Operators
Operators participation in the IETF has been studied in some detail
in [I-D.opsawg-operators-ietf], and some criticism regarding the
reduced operator participation has been discussed in [Bush].
4.2. Academia
[TBD]
5. Effects of Current Participation 5. Effects of Current Participation
The IETF is far from achieving diversity in many (if not most) axes. The IETF is far from achieving diversity in many (if not most) axes.
For example, the IETF is far from having gender parity in the number For example, the IETF is far from having gender parity in the number
of participants, or in having a truly diverse geographical of participants, or in having a truly diverse geographical
participation. participation.
The lack of diversity in current IETF participation essentially means The lack of diversity in current IETF participation essentially means
that decisions and the perception of structural problems is biased that decisions and the perception of structural problems is biased
towards in favor of the realities of current participants, and towards the realities of current participants, and hinders the
hinders the participation of those not "in the club" of large participation of those not "in the club" of large Internet tech
Internet tech companies. companies.
For example, face-to-face (f2f) meetings are held in regions For example, face-to-face (f2f) meetings are held in regions
reflecting current participation levels. But this in turn reflecting current participation levels. But this in turn
facilitates participation from those regions, and makes participation facilitates participation from those regions, and makes participation
from other regions less accessible. from other regions less accessible.
Similarly, the lack of diversity in current participants is in turn Similarly, the lack of diversity in current participants is in turn
reflected in the lack of diversity in IETF groups and leadership reflected in the lack of diversity in IETF groups and leadership
roles (discussed in Section 6) which, again, tends to bias processes roles (discussed in Section 6) which, again, tends to bias processes
in favor of the current participants. in favor of the current participants.
Finally, how new work is considered by the IETF is also generally Finally, how new work is considered by the IETF is also generally
biased in favor of those "in the loop" -- that is, participants that biased in favor of those "in the loop" -- that is, participants that
are already engaged in the IETF and that generally belong to the are already engaged in the IETF and that generally belong to the
reduced groups for which a ROI from IETF participation is feasible reduced groups for which a ROI from IETF participation is feasible
(see Section 4). (see Section 4). At times, participants may perceive discrimination
on the basis of e.g. their employers (or who their employers are
not), the way they use the English language (see Section 11.1, their
cultural conventions and how well those conventions mesh with
expectations of the majority of IETF participants, and their
technical backgrounds.
6. Diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles 6. Diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles
Lack of diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles has a direct Lack of diversity in IETF groups and leadership roles has a direct
effect on IETF participation, as a result of: effect on IETF participation, as a result of:
o Process fairness by having a very small number of interests * Process fairness by having a very small number of interests
judging WG consensus, community consensus, and appeals. judging WG consensus, community consensus, and appeals.
o Leadership selection fairness by having a limited number of * Leadership selection fairness by having a limited number of
interests participating in the NOMCOM and IAB. interests participating in the NOMCOM and IAB.
o Arbitrary decisions produced and enforces by such groups, without * Arbitrary decisions produced and enforces by such groups, without
getting community consensus on them (see e.g., getting community consensus on them (see e.g.,
[I-D.carpenter-nomcom2020-letter]. [I-D.carpenter-nomcom2020-letter]).
6.1. IESG 6.1. IESG
While one might expect greater diversity in IESG members, there are While one might expect greater diversity in IESG members, there are
at least two possible causes for that: at least two possible causes for that:
o There is reduced diversity in many axes of IETF participation * There is reduced diversity in many axes of IETF participation.
o There is (allegedly) a reduced number of possible candidates with * There is (allegedly) a reduced number of possible candidates with
the necessary skills the necessary skills.
As noted in Section 5, it is probably obvious that IETF participation As noted in Section 5, it is probably obvious that IETF participation
is not as diverse as one would expect -- and this certainly is not as diverse as one would expect -- and this certainly
constrains diversity in IETF leadership roles in general. constrains diversity in IETF leadership roles in general.
It is also commonly suggested that there is a limited number of It is also commonly suggested that there is a limited number of
candidates with the appropriate skills set for IESG positions, and candidates with the appropriate skills set for IESG positions, and
that one of the common missing skills is IETF management experience. that one of the common missing skills is IETF management experience.
However, there does not seem to be a concrete effort to produce an However, there does not seem to be a concrete effort to produce an
increase in the number of participants with appropriate skills to increase in the number of participants with appropriate skills to
volunteer for such roles. For example, fostering diversity in WG volunteer for such roles. For example, fostering diversity in WG
chair positions would be an obvious choice for increasing the pool of chair positions would be an obvious choice for increasing the pool of
potential candidates for IESG positions, as discussed in Section 6.2. potential candidates for IESG positions, as discussed in Section 6.2.
6.2. WG Chairs 6.2. WG Chairs
Most WGs have permanent WG chairs which only become rotated when: Most WGs have permanent WG chairs which only become rotated when:
o A WG chair takes a higher responsibility withing the IETF (e.g. * A WG chair takes a higher responsibility within the IETF (e.g. WG
WG Chair becomes an Area Director) Chair becomes an Area Director).
o There are personal issues affecting the WG chair (e.g., WG chair * There are personal issues affecting the WG chair (e.g., WG chair
retires, changes jobs, etc.) retires, changes jobs, etc.).
o There is evident malfunction of a WG which leads to an WG chair * There is evident malfunction of a WG which leads to an WG chair
being replaced being replaced.
However, if the IETF adopted the convention that chairs are rotated However, if the IETF adopted the convention that chairs are rotated
in all cases, this would certainly: in all cases, this would certainly:
o Increase diversity in WG chairs positions. * Increase diversity in WG chairs positions.
o Increase the pool of IETF participants with IETF leadership * Increase the pool of IETF participants with IETF leadership
experience, which could in turn help increase diversity in other experience, which could in turn help increase diversity in other
leadership roles, such as the IESG. leadership roles, such as the IESG.
o Makes WG chair changes less stressful and controversial, since WG * Makes WG chair changes less stressful and controversial, since WG
chairs are rotated *by default* chairs are rotated *by default*.
NOTE: One could envision a policy where each WG has three co- NOTE: One could envision a policy where each WG has three co-
chairs, with different experience levels, and where one of the co- chairs, with different experience levels, and where one of the co-
chairs has no previous WG chair experience. Every two (or so) chairs has no previous WG chair experience. Every two (or so)
years the most experienced WG chair leaves his role, which is years the most experienced WG chair leaves his role, which is
occupied by the second-most experienced WG chair from the group. occupied by the second-most experienced WG chair from the group.
And a new un-experienced WG chair is incorporated by the WG. And a new un-experienced WG chair is incorporated by the WG.
6.3. NOMCOM 6.3. NOMCOM
The current NOMCOM member selection rules try to be fair, but are The current NOMCOM member selection rules try to be fair, but are
still biased in favor of the specific groups discussed in Section 4 still biased in favor of the specific groups discussed in Section 4
and Section 5. and Section 5.
For example, For example,
o The requirement to have attended X out of Y of the last f2f * The requirement to have attended X out of Y of the last f2f
meetings is clearly biased in favor of IETF participants who have meetings is clearly biased in favor of IETF participants who have
enough funding to travel to most meetings. enough funding to travel to most meetings.
o Big tech companies are more likely to be willing to let their * Big tech companies are more likely to be willing to let their
employees do that because they're more likely to get IESG and IAB employees do that because they're more likely to get IESG and IAB
members who favor their interests. members who favor their interests.
o There is the expectation that NOMCOM members attend f2f meetings * There is the expectation that NOMCOM members attend f2f meetings
to carry their NOMCOM duties -- which, again, favors the same to carry their NOMCOM duties -- which, again, favors the same
group of participants (those with funding, which generally work group of participants (those with funding, which generally work
for big tech companies). for big tech companies).
o If the NOMCOM has f2f interviews, the process also favors those * If the NOMCOM has f2f interviews, the process also favors those
candidates that are able to attend f2f meetings, who can be candidates that are able to attend f2f meetings, who can be
interviewed in-person. interviewed in-person.
NOTE: There are a few obvious things that could be done to improve NOTE: There are a few obvious things that could be done to improve
these issues. [RFC8989] is certainly a step in the right these issues. [RFC8989] is certainly a step in the right
direction. Having the NOMCOM perform its duties only online would direction. Having the NOMCOM perform its duties only online would
be another. be another.
7. Processes 7. Processes
Some aspects of WG operation are loosely described. While this may Some aspects of WG operation are loosely described. While this may
be beneficial in some cases, other times the rules or expectations be beneficial in some cases, other times the rules or expectations
regarding how WGs are meant to operate can be problematic for regarding how WGs are meant to operate can be problematic for
participants, and even more so to newcomers. participants, and even more so to newcomers.
NOTE: [I-D.carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis] is a good attempt at NOTE: [I-D.carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis] is a good attempt at
clarifying some specific aspects of WG operation. clarifying some specific aspects of WG operation.
8. Difficulty in Joining the IETF 8. Difficulty in Joining the IETF
8.1. Finding interesting Working Groups and Areas
It is usually hard for newcomers (and sometimes experienced people) It is usually hard for newcomers (and sometimes experienced people)
to see how to contribute effectively or even to find which working to see how to contribute effectively or even to find which working
groups (if any) whose work they would be interested in. groups (if any) whose work they would be interested in.
Similarly there are now so many different groups, committees, Similarly there are now so many different groups, committees,
supporting organizations, etc. involved in running IETF that it is supporting organizations, etc. involved in running IETF that it is
hard to understand the big picture, and know which group does what, hard to understand the big picture, and know which group does what,
or which people to talk to about any given concern. or which people to talk to about any given concern. [IETF-Tao] can
ameliorate this issue, but not eliminate it.
In some cases, working groups may (intentionally) have a narrow
charter, in which case re-chartering the working group, or getting
support for a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session may be non-trivial.
It is also hard for newer people to get "up to speed" on an existing It is also hard for newer people to get "up to speed" on an existing
working group or topic area. Reading the WG's mailing list archive working group or topic area. Reading the WG's mailing list archive
can be very time consuming and not always very illuminating. The can be very time consuming and not always very illuminating. The
Datatracker and Tools effort have been (and still are) of a lot of Datatracker and Tools effort have been (and still are) of a lot of
help here. But having materials that e.g. provide a summary of what help here. But having materials that e.g. provide a summary of what
the ongoing work of a WG is, and that summaries what recent the ongoing work of a WG is, and that summaries what recent
discussions have been about, and what the different views are/have discussions have been about, and what the different views are/have
been, would certainly help in this area. been, would certainly help in this area.
8.2. Difficulty in Authoring and Submitting Internet-Drafts
There are so many formatting rules that an Internet-Draft (and
eventually an RFC) needs to comply to, that in practice the only
reasonable way create and submit an Internet-Draft is via the set of
tools available at: https://tools.ietf.org/ . Tools such as xml2rfc
are of a lot of help to produce documents that comply with the
Internet-Draft formatting rules -- but its error messages might
result cryptic to the unexperienced user.
The number of tools has expanded so much that they probably deserve
their own guidelines. And existing guidelines such as
[ID-Guidelines] should probably be updated with the assumption that
Internet-Drafts will be produced with the set of available tools.
This means that e.g. it becomes less important to the Internet-
Draft author what formatting rules a document needs to comply to,
since the existing tools will guarantee such compliance. On the
other hand, an author may benefit from guidelines on how to use
the set of available tools.
Document authors generally have freedom to select the tools they
employ to author Internet-Drafts. However, this may represent a
challenge to working groups if/when the authors of a working group
become unresponsive and one or more editors need to take control of
the document -- but the new editors are not familiar with the tools
or document source format employed by the original authors of the
document.
8.3. Contributing to Working Groups
Traditionally, aside from f2f meetings, most working group
discussions have taken place on mailing-lists.
Use of mailing-lists have has been considered rather ineffective or
inconvenient by some, and some working groups have started to rely
more on GitHub both for suggesting changes to e.g. Internet-Drafts
and to discuss the associated changes. While some have found this
move convenient, some perceive the reliance on 'git' as an obstacle
to participation. The choice of tools is, indeed, a trade-off.
8.4. Support from Experienced Members
In some cases newcomers would benefit from a mentor that could guide
the newcomer through the process of writing, publishing, and
socializing an Internet-Draft. In cases where a proposal would
nicely fit into one of the existing working groups, the corresponding
working group chairs might be able to provide guidance (assuming the
newcomer is able to spot the appropriate working group and chairs).
If there is no obvious target working group, obtaining such guidance
might result more difficult.
This challenge could be mitigated by having a group of volunteers
that would be willing to guide newcomers in finding an appropriate
working group and submitting a proposal to that working group, or
finding alternatives for pursuing said proposal.
On the other hand, it has also been suggested that when trying to
pursue work in specific areas or working groups, backing by
experienced members is implicitly required in order for a proposal to
have any chances of making progress -- particularly when come from
newcomers.
9. Economic Constraints 9. Economic Constraints
The current IETF processes favor participants who have enough money The current IETF processes favor participants who have enough money
to travel to several meetings a year, and/or participants who work to travel to several meetings a year, and/or participants who work
for companies who can afford such expense and are willing to spend for companies who can afford such expense and are willing to spend
that money (which tends to be a specific subset of companies, as that money (which tends to be a specific subset of companies, as
discussed in Section 4). discussed in Section 4).
Clearly, work such as [I-D.kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee] is a step in [RFC4144] (an individual submission) argues that "eighty percent
the right direction. Other things to evaluate and consider are: of success is showing up".
Clearly, work such as [I-D.ietf-shmoo-remote-fee] is a step in the
right direction. Other things to evaluate and consider are:
incorporating fee waivers for f2f meetings and/or adjusting the IETF incorporating fee waivers for f2f meetings and/or adjusting the IETF
meeting fee to the local realities (i.e., move away from a flat fee), meeting fee to the local realities (i.e., move away from a flat fee),
and reducing the number of f2f meetings. and reducing the number of f2f meetings.
10. Educational Constraints 10. Educational Constraints
You have to know a lot of technical material to participate usefully You have to know a lot of technical material to participate usefully
and effectively in IETF. How IPv4 and IPv6 work, something about and effectively in IETF. How IPv4 and IPv6 work, something about
routing (at least the need for advertisements and aggregation), routing (at least the need for advertisements and aggregation),
something about addressing, something about transport protocols something about addressing, something about transport protocols
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
certifications that provide general knowledge about Internet certifications that provide general knowledge about Internet
protocols and the skills for e.g. configuring internet routers, there protocols and the skills for e.g. configuring internet routers, there
are fewer materials that try to analyze protocols in a critical way are fewer materials that try to analyze protocols in a critical way
(e.g. [Perlman] and [Day]). And this represents a barrier to (e.g. [Perlman] and [Day]). And this represents a barrier to
newcomers. newcomers.
While this is not a problem that the IETF could (or should) solve, While this is not a problem that the IETF could (or should) solve,
there has been work that has helped in this area, and possibly more there has been work that has helped in this area, and possibly more
could be done. e.g., some IETF tutorials have been very educational could be done. e.g., some IETF tutorials have been very educational
and useful not only to introduce newcomers to IETF work, but also to and useful not only to introduce newcomers to IETF work, but also to
provide context for such work, and ocasionally also discuss provide context for such work, and occasionally also discuss
shortcomings. There is certainly room for the IETF to expand on shortcomings. There is certainly room for the IETF to expand on
these activities. these activities.
11. Cultural Issues 11. Cultural Issues
There are a number of cultural issues that also hinder diversity and There are a number of cultural issues that also hinder diversity and
inclusiveness in the IETF. The following sub-sections discuss some inclusiveness in the IETF. The following sub-sections discuss some
of these. of these.
11.1. Language 11.1. Language
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 12, line 13
international language (with attempts such as Esperanto failing international language (with attempts such as Esperanto failing
miserably), communication in (any) non-native language can be miserably), communication in (any) non-native language can be
challenging for a number of reasons. This tends to be more challenging for a number of reasons. This tends to be more
challenging when oral communication (as opposed to written) is challenging when oral communication (as opposed to written) is
involved when expressions or phrasals that are unfamiliar to non- involved when expressions or phrasals that are unfamiliar to non-
native speakers of the language are involved. native speakers of the language are involved.
Consider expressions such as "red herring", "knee jerk", and Consider expressions such as "red herring", "knee jerk", and
others. others.
Additionally, use of terms that may have a political or social Use of terms that may have a political or social connotation may
connotation may result offensive to at least part of the community result offensive to at least part of the community (see e.g.
(see e.g. [I-D.knodel-terminology] or [I-D.knodel-terminology] or [I-D.gondwana-effective-terminology]).
[I-D.gondwana-effective-terminology]). On the other hand, some participants (particularly those that do not
speak English as a native language) may be unaware of the connotation
or historical background of such words, and may in turn be judged for
their inadvertent usage.
11.2. Using email effectively 11.2. Using email effectively
Email is still the best way for IETFer's to communicate at a Email is still the best way for IETFer's to communicate at a
distance, it's vendor-independent and avoids vendor lockin, it's distance, it's vendor-independent and avoids vendor lock-in, it's
universally available, there are many providers and email user agents universally available, there are many providers and email user agents
to choose from, it lends itself to searching and archiving, etc. to choose from, it lends itself to searching and archiving, etc.
It's the medium of choice partially because it doesn't impose many It's the medium of choice partially because it doesn't impose many
barriers to IETF participants using it. But there's a bit of an art barriers to IETF participants using it. But there's a bit of an art
to using it effectively. to using it effectively.
11.3. Comfort zone 11.3. Comfort zone
Willingness to leave one's comfort zone is usually a necessary Willingness to leave one's comfort zone is usually a necessary
condition to participating effectively in IETF. condition to participating effectively in IETF.
skipping to change at page 10, line 49 skipping to change at page 13, line 15
And sometimes one runs into overt personal prejudice on the part of And sometimes one runs into overt personal prejudice on the part of
others, and we have to deal with that too. It's part of the others, and we have to deal with that too. It's part of the
landscape. Often people aren't aware of their prejudices or accept landscape. Often people aren't aware of their prejudices or accept
them as natural or correct, and don't know how to turn them off even them as natural or correct, and don't know how to turn them off even
if they wanted to. With increasing familiarity and a willingness to if they wanted to. With increasing familiarity and a willingness to
respect fellow participants, it can diminish over time. But it takes respect fellow participants, it can diminish over time. But it takes
work, and that work is also often uncomfortable work. work, and that work is also often uncomfortable work.
12. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA registries within this document. The RFC-Editor This document has no IANA actions.
can remove this section before publication of this document as an
RFC.
13. Security Considerations 13. Security Considerations
The security implications arising from this document. There are no security implications arising from this document.
14. Acknowledgements 14. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Carsten
Bormann, Brian Carpenter, Lars Eggert, Theresa Enghardt, Simone
Ferlin-Reiter, Juliana Guerra, Bron Gondwana, Joel M. Halpern,
Dominique Lazanski, Eliot Lear, for providing valuable comments on
earlier versions of this document.
This document has been motivated by discussions with a number of This document has been motivated by discussions with a number of
individuals, both on- and off-list. individuals, both on- and off-list.
15. Informative References 15. Informative References
[Bush] Bush, R., "Into the Future with the Internet Vendor Task
Force: A Very Curmudgeonly View - or - Testing Spaghetti
-- A Wall's Point of View", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, Volume 35, Number 5, October 2005,
<https://archive.psg.com/051000.sigcomm-ivtf.pdf>.
[Day] Day, J., "Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to [Day] Day, J., "Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to
Fundamentals", Prentice-Hall 1st edition, 1999. Fundamentals", 1st edition, Prentice-Hall, 1999.
[I-D.carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis] [I-D.carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis]
Farrel, A., Crocker, D., Carpenter, B., Gont, F., and M. Farrel, A., Crocker, D., Carpenter, B. E., Gont, F., and
Richardson, "Handling and Adoption of Internet-Drafts by M. Richardson, "Handling and Adoption of Internet-Drafts
IETF Working Groups", draft-carpenter-gendispatch- by IETF Working Groups", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
rfc7221bis-01 (work in progress), October 2020. draft-carpenter-gendispatch-rfc7221bis-01, 29 October
2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-
gendispatch-rfc7221bis-01.txt>.
[I-D.carpenter-nomcom2020-letter] [I-D.carpenter-nomcom2020-letter]
Carpenter, B., "Open Letter to the 2020-21 IETF Nominating Carpenter, B. E., "Open Letter to the 2020-21 IETF
Committee", draft-carpenter-nomcom2020-letter-00 (work in Nominating Committee", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
progress), September 2020. draft-carpenter-nomcom2020-letter-00, 11 September 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-
nomcom2020-letter-00.txt>.
[I-D.gondwana-effective-terminology] [I-D.gondwana-effective-terminology]
Gondwana, B., "Effective Terminology in IETF drafts", Gondwana, B., "Effective Terminology in IETF drafts", Work
draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01 (work in in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gondwana-effective-
progress), August 2020. terminology-01, 25 August 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gondwana-effective-
terminology-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-shmoo-remote-fee]
Kuehlewind, M., Reed, J., and R. Salz, "Open Participation
Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-02,
25 October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-02.txt>.
[I-D.knodel-terminology] [I-D.knodel-terminology]
Knodel, M. and N. Oever, "Terminology, Power, and Knodel, M. and N. T. Oever, "Terminology, Power, and
Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs", draft- Exclusionary Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs", Work
knodel-terminology-04 (work in progress), August 2020. in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-knodel-terminology-08,
12 January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
knodel-terminology-08.txt>.
[I-D.kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee] [I-D.opsawg-operators-ietf]
Kuehlewind, M., Reed, J., and R. Salz, "Open Participation Grundemann, C. and J. Zorz, "Operators and the IETF", Work
Principle regarding Remote Registration Fee", draft- in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-opsawg-operators-ietf-
kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee-02 (work in progress), January 00, 27 October 2014, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
2021. draft-opsawg-operators-ietf-00.txt>.
[ID-Guidelines]
Housley, R., "Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts",
2010, <https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/guidelines/>.
[IETF-Tao] ten Oever, N. and K. Moriarty, "The Tao of IETF: A
Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force",
2019, <https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/>.
[Perlman] Perlman, R., "Interconnections: Bridges, Routers, [Perlman] Perlman, R., "Interconnections: Bridges, Routers,
Switches, and Internetworking Protocols", Addison-Wesley Switches, and Internetworking Protocols", 2nd edition,
Professional 2nd edition, 1999. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1999.
[RFC4144] Eastlake 3rd, D., "How to Gain Prominence and Influence in
Standards Organizations", RFC 4144, DOI 10.17487/RFC4144,
September 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4144>.
[RFC8989] Carpenter, B. and S. Farrell, "Additional Criteria for [RFC8989] Carpenter, B. and S. Farrell, "Additional Criteria for
Nominating Committee Eligibility", RFC 8989, Nominating Committee Eligibility", RFC 8989,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8989, February 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8989, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8989>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8989>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fernando Gont Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks EdgeUno
Segurola y Habana 4310, 7mo Piso Segurola y Habana 4310, 7mo Piso
Villa Devoto, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires Villa Devoto
Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires
Argentina Argentina
Email: fgont@si6networks.com Email: fernando.gont@edgeuno.com
URI: https://www.si6networks.com URI: https://www.edgeuno.com
Keith Moore Keith Moore
Network Heretics Network Heretics
Email: moore@network-heretics.com Email: moore@network-heretics.com
 End of changes. 72 change blocks. 
114 lines changed or deleted 254 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/