Melinda,
I'm not so sure debating the merits of a specific measure has value or
not is really that helpful, and I probably just should have ignore this
small point. Let's say some limited measure of diversity is valid, what
do we learn from it? Is the conclusion that only one group is being
discriminated against and that the IETF needs to address this one
specific form of discrimination, or is it that the top of the IETF is
far from diverse? If the latter, I buy it -- the IETF has a diversity
issue.
As many others have said, there are many forms of bias and
discrimination -- all of which are harmful, and only some of which have
the legal protection (in your favorite country) that they should.
Irrespective of any specific statistic, I think this discussion has
shown that there is consensus that working to eliminate bias and
discrimination *in all forms* from the IETF is worth paying attention
to. Do you disagree, are you saying that the IETF should only/first try
to address only gender bias?
I personally think all IETF participants should have voice in this
discussion, no matter if they fall into an obviously discriminated
against group or not. This includes the full range of participants,
even newcomers, folks who have never authored an I-D, folks who by any
measure are significant I* contributors, and even "western white guys".
IMO the exclusion of any voice is itself a manifestation of bias.
Lou
On 4/12/2013 10:22 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/12/13 1:26 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question
that I don't understand be substantiated.
And I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive
of bias. We can take a swing at getting a very rough handle on
that but I'm actually not sure that we should because it appears
to be the case that the cost of any remediation that some of us
might want to undertake would be higher than the cost of living
with bias in the system (this would be the considerable downside
to consensus decision-making processes with a very large participant
base).
And I don't know if you intended to or not, but what you
communicated is "The best candidates are nearly always
western white guys," since that's who's being selected.
That's a problematic suggestion.
I certainly, in no way, shape, or form intended such an implication. I
have not idea how one could read it that way, [ ... ]
A (male) friend once said that men are no more likely to notice
sexism than fish are to notice water. I think that was far
too broad but generally true. If I think that white western
men are being selected in disproportion to their presence in
the candidate pool, and I do, then telling me that "we only
choose the best" is telling me that white, western men tend
to be the best. Pretty much every organization that applauds
itself for its meritocratic reward structure (to the extent
that an I* gig is a "reward") and yet only advances white
guys says the same thing. It is a trope, and a familiar one.
Melinda