ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership

2013-03-11 12:14:47
On 3/11/2013 11:41 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

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.

Hi, Fred,

I'm not sure which above statement you're uncomfortable with - my original e-mail was saying that I was uncomfortable with the proposed actions for the confirming bodies, and was asking if there were any other actions that might make sense for the confirming bodies to take.

One possible answer is "no". Another possible answer is "not yet". I've seen both of those go past in this thread. I'm just if there are other possible answers.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I'm listening - thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Spencer

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>