On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:20 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Diversity of IETF Leadership begins at the bottom. It is challenging for
reasons which I unfortunately cannot describe. I am supportive of the
effort. I am not comfortable with quotas. My preference is to see that the
IETF is accessible. I'll describe that as reaching out to individuals at the
point of entry and see what can be done for them to have a lesser barrier
within the IETF.
This is an excellent point. More diversity in top-level leadership begin with
more a more diverse set of active participants, followed by a more diverse set
of document editors, directorate members and WG chairs. The diversity of our
active participants (as judged by the diversity of meeting attendees) has gone
up significantly over the years, but we need to figure out why that has not
been fully reflected in diversity among WG chairs, document authors, etc.
I've been thinking, for instance, that one thing we could add to our list of
immediate actions is for IESG members to review their directorate membership
and, if it makes sense, attempt to increase the diversity of their
directorates. This would have two effects: the IESG would get better advice,
and it would give the people they appoint more opportunity to interact with
other senior IETF participants and demonstrate their abilities.
It is important that people realize that if we have a selection process (from
beginning to end, not just the NomCom) that is picking a less-diverse group of
leaders from a more-diverse group of participants, that selection process _is
not_ selecting the best possible candidates. Figuring out the root cause of
that problem is hard -- it is not something we can pin on the NomCom, because
the NomCom may not end-up with the best candidate pool to choose from for
various reasons. It is something we should fix, though, because the result
will be _better_ leadership and a more effective organization.
Margaret