|
Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership
2013-03-10 18:23:38
I am glad to see the IETF beginning to have this conversation about diversity.
I am concerned that, as an organization, we avoid becoming locked into
entrenched, polarizing positions, though. Some of us will take the view that
qualified people may not be taking on, or may not be selected to fill,
positions of authority within IETF because of structural barriers within the
organization. Some qualified people may feel that they personally don't belong,
in social terms, or they may be excluded because of economic costs that are
greater than they can bear. On the other hand, other members may insist that
individuals make their own choices, and that those who currently hold the
various positions work very hard and make a range of sacrifices and compromises
in order to meet the requirements of the offices. If we look at other
organizations that have wrestled with diversity issues, we will see that many
people argue that such initiatives may result in less qualified people, and peo!
ple whose interest is in diversity rather than in technology, making it into
positions of authority. Some members of our organization will therefore be
concerned that technical decision-making will suffer and that the people who
really care about the technical decisions will end up bearing even more of the
organization's workload than they already do. Somehow we have to come up with
an approach that fosters bringing in the talents of those who may currently be
overlooked but also continues to put the organization's mandate first. Our goal
as an organization must be to make sure that we are, in fact, welcoming and
accessible, so that people who are deeply interested in the technological
issues can and will take on an active role and move into positions of
authority. The question is how to do this.
I think we must first understand our own position within the larger social
context. There has been a recession, which has hit some parts of the world
harder than others and has hit different industries and industry players
differently. A couple of years ago, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the
workforce in Silicon Valley had in some respects become less diverse in the
previous eight years (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14383730). The New York
Times reported, around the same time, that women seemed not to be graduating in
computer science in as large numbers as they had 15 or 20 years ago
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=1&). It may
therefore be the case that in part, membership in our organization is
reflecting wider trends. On the other hand, general trends ought not to cause
us to stick our heads in the sand and refuse even to examine the issue. We
should also consider that increased diversity could come through different
pathways: we coul!
d increase our international membership, or we could increase the racial and
gender diversity of our North American and European membership. It may even be
that if we increase our international membership, the percentage of women in
our organization may decline, since it may be that women computer scientists
and engineers are even rarer outside North America and Europe. I say "may"
because I don't know the statistics, but I do think that expanding our reach
into the world may lead to results we don't expect as well as results we do.
One key aspect of our considerations, I think, has to be the broad question of
how we draw new people into the organization. Attending the conferences has to
be important. If there are barriers to attendance, those barriers would need to
be considered. We should think about where we hold our conferences, how long it
takes to get to them, how much it costs to participate, and whether we make it
possible to be really involved remotely. We should minimize travel time and the
cost of travel, in both money and time. Maybe we should think about some
mechanism for subsidizing people who travel long distances, especially if they
don't work for big companies. Maybe we should offer daycare. It would seem to
me that there would be something to be said for looking very carefully at the
processes for choosing venues and setting attendance costs. We should meet in
different parts of the world. We should not treat meeting in Vancouver or
Hawaii as equivalent to meeting in Asia. We should p!
lan our meetings with the dual goal of increasing our attractiveness to new
members and minimizing the commitment of time and money for existing members,
because these are the goals that we seek to achieve through our meetings that
are most important for our organization as a whole.
Once we have qualified people involved in IETF, we want to draw them into
greater roles within the organization. There are serious structural problems
here, though. Being seriously involved requires volunteering many hours every
week or month - sometimes almost the equivalent of a full-time job. We have to
understand that most people who take on positions of authority within IETF have
companies paying their salaries, companies that can afford to have them doing
much less company work in the short term so that the company can benefit in the
long term. It should hardly be surprising that, especially in a recession (when
the share prices of smaller outfits and the ambitions of their founders are in
a soberer state) it would be large companies that would be willing and able to
fund these positions. It may well also be the case that within these companies,
it is less likely to be women or racial minorities who are in a position to ask
for full pay for part-time work. Since we hav!
e rely on voluntary labour, we maybe should think about structuring the time
and money issues so that they can be workable for people from smaller companies
and other parts of the world. I don't know how to do that, but I raise the
question for discussion.
I think it is important that we foster on-ramps into the organization, so that
we can welcome promising people into worthwhile, flexible work that will be
good for their careers as well as good for the organization as a whole. Perhaps
the Areas should do some outreach, into regions or new companies or even
university graduate programs. I really don't know the answer. It seems to me
that maybe a good way to start would be to have an open conversation structured
around the question "what drew you to IETF and why did you stay?" The flip
side, of course, would be "and where did your colleagues go, the ones who have
not come back?"
I think Jari's proposal to get a group looking at this seems like a good
starting point.
Cullen
On Mar 10, 2013, at 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity
<ietf(_dot_)diversity(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
The letter below was sent to the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC and the ISOC Board
this morning, in an attempt to open a discussion of how to increase the
diversity of the IETF Leadership. We are sharing the letter here to
encourage community discussion of this important topic.
If you support this letter and would like to be added as a signatory, please
send e-mail to ietf(_dot_)diversity(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com, and your name will
be added to the list of signatures.
---
** An Open Letter to the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC and the ISOC Board **
Dear Members of the IETF Leadership,
We would like to call your attention to an issue that weakens the
IETF's decision-making process and calls into question the
legitimacy of the IETF as an International Standards Development
Organization: the lack of diversity of the IETF leadership.
In addition to the moral and social issues involved, diversity of
leadership across several axes (race, geographic location, gender
and corporate affiliation) is important for three practical reasons:
- It is a well-established fact that diverse groups are smarter
and make better decisions than less-diverse groups.
- Lack of diversity in our leadership becomes a self-perpetuating
problem, because people who are not represented in the IETF
leadership are less likely to dedicate their time and effort to
the IETF.
- The lack of diversity in the IETF leadership undermines our
credibility and challenges our legitimacy as an International
Standards Development Organization.
Unfortunately, despite a substantial increase in the number of IETF
leadership positions (from 25 to 32) and increasingly diverse
attendance at IETF meetings, the diversity of the IETF leadership has
not improved. In fact, it seems to have dropped significantly over
the past ten years.
For example, ten years ago, in February of 2003, there were 25 members
of the IETF leadership (12 IAB members and 13 IESG members). Of those
25 members, there was one member of non-European descent, there was one
member from a country outside of North America or Europe, and there were
four women. There were 23 companies represented in the IETF leadership
(out of a total of 25 seats).
In February of 2013, there were 32 members of the IETF leadership
(12 IAB members, 15 IESG members and 5 IAOC members). Of those 32
members, there was one member of non-European descent, there were no
members from countries outside of North America or Europe, and there
was only one woman. There were only 19 companies represented (out of
a total of 32 seats).
It is important to the continued relevance and success of the IETF
that we address this issue and eliminate whatever factors are
contributing to the lack of diversity in our leadership. We believe
that this is an important and urgent issue that requires your
immediate attention.
There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within
our existing BCPs, to address this problem:
- Each of the IETF leadership bodies (the IESG, IAB and IAOC)
could update the qualifications that they submit to the
Nominations Committee (through the IAD) to make it clear that
the Nominations Committee should actively seek to increase the
diversity of that body in terms of race, geographic location,
gender and corporate affiliation.
- Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the
IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a
public statement at the beginning of each year's nominations
process that they will not confirm a slate unless it
contributes to increased diversity within the IETF leadership,
or it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of what
steps were taken to select a more diverse slate and why it was
not possible to do so.
- The ISOC President could continue to select Nominations
Committee Chairs who understand the value of diversity and are
committed to increasing the diversity of the IETF.
- The Nominations Committee could be offered resources or
training on the value of diversity, techniques to recruit a
more diverse candidate pool, and/or information about how to
minimize conflict-of-interest and personal bias in their
selection process.
We also feel that more substantial and longer-term changes may be
needed to fully address this issue. Therefore, we request that the
new IETF Chair assemble a design team (with diverse membership, of
course) to determine the causes of this problem and to make
suggestions for longer-term solutions to be considered by the IETF.
We are committed to working within the IETF to make the changes
that are needed to correct this serious issue.
Best Regards,
(In alphabetical order)
Bernard Aboba
Cathy Aronson
Alia Atlas
Mary Barnes
Mohamed Boucadair
Brian Carpenter
Stuart Cheshire
Alissa Cooper
Spencer Dawkins
Roni Even
Janet Gunn
Stephen Hanna
Ted Hardie
Sam Hartman
Fangwei Hu
Geoff Huston
Christian Jacquenet
Mirjam Kuehne
Olaf Kolkman
Suresh Krishnan
Barry Leiba
Ted Lemon
Kepeng Li
Dapeng Liu
Allison Mankin
Bill Manning
Kathleen Moriarty
Monique Morrow
Nurani Nimpuno
Matt Nottingham
Erik Nordmark
Karen O'Donoghue
Iuniana Oprescu
Jaqueline Queiroz
Hosnieh Rafiee
Pete Resnick
Lea Roberts
Simon Pietro Romano
Peter Saint-Andre
Eve Schooler
Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Larissa Shapiro
Melinda Shore
Barbara Stark
Brian Trammel
Tina Tsou
Justin Uberti
Margaret Wasserman
Renee Wilson-Burstein
James Woodyatt
Lucy Yong
Jessica Yu
Lixia Zhang
|
|