what you are suggesting is quotas and forced participation from a
volunteer organization... are you serious?
At 11:51 PM 4/16/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> My own feeling is that if we were to find that the
>> numbers supported the notion that there's bias
>> present in the system we probably couldn't do anything
>> about it without tearing the organization apart, so,
>
> Is there a way to increase #countries #small companies #women etc? Be
> it about the participants or the leadership. Could we set a goal that
> we'll increase some aspect every year, 2014 to be better than 2013?
>
IMO we can do many thing about it, if we discuss these issues into an I-D.
- There is a way to increase #women when they decide together as a
group what is missing, and what should be done,
- There is a way to increase #small companies when they are
accepted/involved in IETF WGs documents. If individuals are encouraged
then SMEs will be as well,
- There is a way to increase #countries/states when each have their
accepted access to the IETF WG system.
I may suggest that each WG system to not only have two chairs, but
also 5 administrated participants (for each continent, they may give
chance to SMEs access and new I-Ds) that should look into the
implementation/running-code of the IETF WG standards in real life.
They can look into countries/states challenges/involvement in such
work of the WG, to be documented if available. Countries will only
increase-in/use IETF if their SMEs are using IETF systems. Now it
seems that there are influences/directions from the industry/countries
to IETF WGs' work but not seen/clear to others.
For women, I think there must be at least 10% of women in the IETF
leadership, as we should not ignore that many research/SMEs in
industry are directed by women. They should publish an I-D related if
they are interested. Is IETF still directed by men or both?
AB