On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Dan Harkins wrote:
On Thu, April 18, 2013 3:24 pm, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, do we need to start this entire conversation over, overtly stating
that we are not interested in looking at *intentional* gender (or
corporate affiliation or other sorts of) bias?
Actually I think it would be better to explicitly state what is intended
to be done. If you think that we are subconsciously influenced when
it comes to gender bias then I'd like to know what is going to be done
about it. And if it's more than "nothing" then I'd like to know what our
goal is vis-a-vis the gender breakdown of leadership positions and
the lengths that we will go to ensure we reach it.
If we're just gathering data to make a pie chart for the plenary then
it seems like a waste of time.
Without gathering a baseline, it makes no sense to postulate mitigations
because there is no way to judge progress.
Others have already noted that there are several different points of
concern. By measurement, it may be possible to establish that IESG
gender membership tracks general meeting attendance (or doesn't
track meeting attendance). If it tracks meeting attendance it
seems reasonable to finds ways to increase participation by
the underrepresented population in the whole IETF. If it doesn't
track the general population, then more detailed analysis is
needed of the process of selecting IESG members.
Collecting population characteristics is the first baby step.