I signed the letter and my answers to your questions are below [MB].
I would posit that a number of others have answers not unlike my own.
Mary.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
I'm not sure I have enough data to evaluate the comments in this letter. I
don't disagree with the general goal "diversity is good". I do believe that
the proposed actions are not realistic in that they would tend to make the
Nomcom process even more moribund. I will note that Appendix A suggests,
but does not require the Nomcom to consider diversity in the appointment of
IAB members (and doing diversity on a company basis can sometimes fight with
doing diversity on a minority, gender or geographic basis).
But I have a more fundamental set of questions with respect to the data on
trend stated by the letter - that we're becoming less diverse.
1) Is there a "statistically significant" difference in the composition of
the set of the working group chairs and the set of the members of the IESG
and IAB taken together for the 10 years mentioned? It was pointed out to
me that it is pretty much a hard requirement that members of those bodies
have previous experience as a WG chair, so THAT is the set with which the
IESG and IAB membership should be compared, not the IETF as a whole.
2) Of the people who signed this letter
a) Who have been working group chairs?
[MB] I've chaired RAI area WGs since 2006. I have chaired DISPATCH WG
since 2009 and CLUE since 2011.
b) Who would be willing to volunteer for
i) the Nomcom
[MB] I served as Nomcom chair in the past. [/MB]
ii) the IAB
[MB] I currently serve as IAB executive director. [/MB]
iii) the IESG?
[MB] I have been a nominee for RAI (and other areas) at least 6 times. [/MB
c) Whose employers (or other supporting organization) would be willing to
support their participation in
[MB] Obviously, I have had employers that have supported in all the
roles and currently support me in the roles in which I am currently
serving. [/MB]
i) the Nomcom
ii) the IAB
iii) the IESG?
3) Same set of questions for the IETF as a whole. I'd really like to get an
understanding of the size and composition of the intersection of the set of
current/past WG chairs and the set of "my employer will support me doing the
IESG job".
I've had a few conversations on this topic already at the current meeting
and at least three conversations went: "I don't have time (or support) for
the IESG, but I really think I could be an asset to the IAB". E.g. the IESG
takes significantly more time than the IESG.
[MB] I think you mean IESG takes more time than IAB. I would
certainly agree with that but I do not believe there was a shortage of
nominees/volunteers to serve in IESG positions this year. [/MB]
My take is that a) WG chair and b) employer support are the two objective
criteria in the Nomcom process.
I would hesitate to eliminate the "must have been a WG chair" as criteria as
its one of the few internal-to-the-IETF opportunities to observe or evaluate
candidate abilities. But then we need to figure out if we're doing what we
can to diversify the WG chairs without adversely affecting the WGs.
For employer support - we're either stuck with the current situation, or we
shrink the job to increase the number of people (and employers) willing to
do the job, or we figure out how to get third party support for given
positions. Unless and until we do this, we have to live with the set of
candidates for things like the IESG being a lot smaller than the IETF as a
whole.
What ever we come up with, I'd really like it to be actionable and
objective.
[MB] My personal opinion is that these are not our biggest issues in
increasing diversity, with the exception of corporate/sponsor
diversity. They are certainly general issues and challenges that we
are faced with as a whole. [/MB]
Mike
At 06:22 AM 3/10/2013, IETF Diversity 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