On 03/20/2013 12:21 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees
reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37
nominees),
I actually don't think that the number of female nominees is relevant.
What is relevant is the number of qualified female nominees who had the
willingness, the availability, the required expertise, and the support
necessary to fill the position.
[MB] Sure. But, I know of at least two that I don't think or would
hope anyone would debate were qualified in all the areas you suggest. Both have
contributed
significantly to IETF in a variety
of leadership positions.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they have sufficient time or employer
support to do the job now. And there's no way that someone like you or
me can reliably know whether that's the case. That has to be something
that's kept confidential between the nominee and the nomcom.
One concept that is not very well understood, however, is the basic
fact that women
work differently than men and thus expecting us to fit the cookie
cutter of IETF leaders isn't quite
appropriate.
To be clear: I wasn't arguing about that aspect at all, just about
whether it's reasonable to look at a slate of nominees and compare that
to the slate of people selected and make inferences about the role of
gender in the nomcom's decision process.
I'm also not presuming that just because there were no women in the
latest set of appointees to IESG, that it's because the current nomcom
didn't think that women could "fit the cookie cutter". I don't have
and don't pretend to have the ability to read their minds. In general
I think that presumptions that require the ability to read specific
people's minds should be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant and perhaps
insulting. People can imagine or project what they like, but what
people imagine or project should never be confused with reality.
To be told by a nomcom voting member, when I mention
this fact, that this just isn't so because IETF is a meritocracy is
insulting and shows a sheer lack of respect for the value that
diversity brings to an organization.
Respectfully disagree.
We expect the nomcom to balance lots of different considerations when
choosing IESG and other appointees, AND we expect them to keep their
deliberations confidential. Gender is definitely a valid
consideration, but it's only one consideration, and at least a dozen
others have been mentioned. To look at the nomcom result through the
aperture of only one or two of those considerations, and then make a
statement about the nature of their imagined gender bias strikes me as
pure speculation.
I certainly hope that the nomcom doesn't believe that women can't do the
jobs. Our community has ample evidence and decades of experience that
they can. I served with several women when I was on IESG and found all
of them to be capable and professional in every respect.
Note also that the process for selecting the nomcom is inherently
gender-neutral, at least to the extent that the requirement for nomcom
attendance at prior IETF meetings doesn't impose a gender barrier.
[MB] You have to keep in mind in the past that the there were
"dummies" in the nominee pool before open list. I was explicitly told
by this year's nomcom chair that they were not doing that. Thus, I
would anticipate that the majority of those in the pool this year were
willing and able.[/MB]
That helps a bit, but I still don't think it supports an assertion of
gender bias in the nomcom's process.
Keith