On 27 February 2014 08:24, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
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.