On 3/20/13 3:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While I agree that it helps avoiding a "few big vendors" bias.
is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a
non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where
simply more diversity in the I* leadership would bring a noticable
improvement--without that same change adversely affecting the amount
and quality of the *other* IETF output?
I think it would improve the quality of stewardship and review,
and the understanding of what's going on in the industry and
where the needs and priorities are. I also think that the very
distinct western bias in the leadership means that there's a
distinct lack of familiarity with deployment and management
models being used (or assumed) by a growing portion of IETF
participants.
I also expect that I am not the only participant who's a
consultant and at least partly self-funded and regularly coming
to meetings, but there will always be folks saying that we
don't exist, even as people seem to not want to acknowledge
that there were a lot of women who'd accepted IESG nominations
this cycle.
But, I do think that given our decision-making structures and
so on, and given the speed with which people I thought knew
better zoomed over to the "NO QUOTAS!" place when the issue
was raised, this situation is basically irreparable.
Melinda