ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-11 11:41:55

On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins 
<spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org> wrote:

On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote:

I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important.

There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within
our existing BCPs, to address this problem:

     - 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.

I'd ask that people think about what the confirming bodies should be willing 
to say, along these lines. It seems a bit strong to me, but I'm not sure what 
the community is comfortable with.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the above statement. Yes, diversity is a 
good thing, and I'm all for it. However, I don't think it is a fundamental 
goal; the fundamental goal is (as Jari said) to get the best people for the job 
from the available talent pool. I don't know that political correctness 
automatically helps there. 

For the noncom, if there is a choice between two people of equal capability, 
diversity considerations can be useful in selection (pick the person who is not 
a north american or european white male). But when it comes to confirmation of 
a slate, the confirming body is not being asked whether there are enough little 
green women, it's being asked whether the individuals selected and the 
resulting committees (the IAB, the IESG, or whatever) will be effective and 
competent in the role. A statement like "Send us more little green women" from 
a confirming body to the noncom makes some important assumptions: that there 
were little green women to choose from, that they were equally or more 
competent than the person selected, and so on. The confirming body is not privy 
to the discussions of the noncom, and isn't told why a given individual was not 
selected, only the arguments for those selected. That makes all such 
assumptions pretty dubious.

I'd prefer that confirmation processes stick to fundamental goals, not 
political correctness. If you want to encourage the noncom to consider 
diversity in its deliberations, fine. But not the confirming bodies.