Hi, SM,
This may be a misprint ...
On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
0.1% of IAB members are female
0 % of IESG members are female.
Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more "diverse". The IAOC already
collects gender-related information. The other information requested in the meeting
registration form is strictly for meeting attendance purposes. The sensitive questions
referred to above have nothing to do with meeting attendance.
With respect, this is sampling noise. 12.5% of 8 is 1. Don't get me
wrong—it's great that we have some diversity on the IAOC, but I don't think
anybody should be patting themselves on the back just yet!
What diversity is the IAOC measuring?
By my count, the current IAB membership is 15 (12 Nomcom-selected, plus
the IETF chair, plus the ExecDir, plus the IRTF Chair - these last two
are ex-officio and non-voting).
If the IAB means "members", the number for females, as far as I know(*),
is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the number for
females is 1/13, or just under 8 percent.
Other diversities also matter, and I'm just doing math here (**).
Spencer
(*) In my spare time, I'm co-president of PFLAG Dallas, which is a local
chapter of PFLAG, an abbreviated abbreviation of "Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual _and Transgender_ people", so I know I
can't claim definitive knowledge on who's what ... only on what people
appear to be.
(**) I think diversity matters, and didn't want us to look less
gender-diverse than we are ...