Dave,
Just one comment below [MB].
Mary.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 27 February 2014 08:24, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>wrote:
On the other hand, IMHO, Being social in IETF and creating social clubs
is not bad, but it should not influence IETF participants decisions,
because it is better that participants follow engineering logic/practice
reasons not following private/public clubs. Increasing Diversity into
IETF is the solution to avoid wrong clubings in IESG and IETF WGs (i. e.
IETF's main decision makings).
I think it's important to note that the IETF participants are human.
Humans work best together when there's a social, as well as professional,
element to their relationship. In fact, I'd argue that in terms of general
progress toward a sensible goal, the social element is more important - I'm
far more inclined to listen to a new idea with an open mind from someone I
like.
Forming social relationships between participants therefore does influence
participants decisions, and usually in a positive manner.
This idea that we should become emotionless robots making perfect logical
decisions seems sensible at first glance, but it's just not how groups of
people work.
As each person joins the group, the nature of the group changes in subtle
ways. The trick is to ensure those changes are both positive, and as small
as possible - then they'll be welcomed by the group as a whole.
I would, therefore, argue that the best way a new participant can gain
traction within a group is to be personable, and make a good first
impression. The best way we can be open to new participants is to welcome
them and give them the benefit of the doubt as they find their feet
socially.
The worst way a new participant can gain traction is to repeatedly appear
to claim they know what's wrong with the group, and cause friction. The
worst way to treat a newcomer is, of course, pretty obvious, but boils down
to the group avoiding even the slightest change.
As to diversity, let me really make myself unpopular.
I think that if we suddenly introduced large numbers of people from
different cultural backgrounds, the balance of the group as a whole would
shift so violently that all social cohesion would be lost, and the net
result would be a massive decrease in work output.
[MB] That's a very easy statement for someone who is in the majority
culturally and gender wise to make. I certainly hope you are in the
majority. My perspective would be that we might actually make better
progress with this "violent shift" that disrupts the current "social
cohesion" by bringing in new ideas and different, more effective ways of
working. [/MB]
Instead we should tread carefully. I agree that ensuring maximal inclusion
is a good thing; lots of different cultural backgrounds will introduce new
ideas and concepts for the group to draw upon. But working slowly is going
to lead to a better result, not only for the "old guard", but for the
newcomers too.
Dave.