----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw(_at_)lilacglade(_dot_)org>
To: "t.p." <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Dan Harkins" <dharkins(_at_)lounge(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 1:53 AM
Hi Tom,
On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 AM, t.p. <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> wrote:
If we required the IETF to reflect the diversity of people who are,
e.g., IT network professionals, then the IETF would fall apart for
lack
of ability.
[…]
If the ADs of the IETF have to represent the diversity of the world -
which could in extremes..
Has anyone even suggested that IESG should reflect the diversity of
these groups? Where is this coming from? You are putting up strawmen,
so that you can tear them down…
The question that people are asking is why the diversity of the IETF
leadership doesn't reflect the diversity of _the IETF_.
There is no inherent reason why 40+-year-old, white, western males who
work at large networking equipment vendors are inherently more capable
of serving on the IESG than people from other groups within the IETF,
and there would be _considerable internal benefit_ to having an IESG
that was more diverse, because diverse groups make better decisions and
better represent the needs of the whole organization. Therefore, if
there is something about our culture, our structure, our selection
process, or the way we run our meetings that is causing us to
predominantly select our leadership from a restricted group, we would
have _more capable_ and _better_ leadership if we could find a way to
broaden that pool.
_That_ is what this discussion is about. This is not an effort to meet
some externally imposed notion of diversity.
<tp>
Margaret
The first I saw of this idea was the post by Ray, which said
"The IETF is concerned about diversity. As good engineers, we would
like
to attempt to measure diversity while working on addressing and
increasing
it. To that end, we are considering adding some possibly sensitive
questions to the registration process, for example, gender.
For me, this came out of the blue. I have no idea why it is considered
that the IETF - note, IETF not IAB or IESG or IAOC - has become
concerned nor what evidence there is of concern.
And note, 'for example, gender' which seems to have become the only
measure under consideration; was that Ray's intent, or was he being coy
and leaving out other frequent lacks of diversity which are more
delicate to discuss? I immediately assumed the latter, based on no
evidence at all! Given the way the discussion has gone, perhaps he
meant
'only and exclusively gender but I could not possibly say that':-)
As Michael StJohns has said,
"How does the IETF evolve to continue to be an effective, efficient, and
relevant source of high quality Internet standards?"
which I think is spot on. I do not see diversity (lack of) as being
part of that until it is shown to be. I do see the IESG as key to the
work of the IETF and see
filling positions there as challenging, perhaps a risk to the long term
existence of the IETF. The requirements - technical knowledge,
experience,
time to spend on IETF business, e.g. - make the candidate pool rather
small
and I believe that any more constraints will weaken that pool and could
hazard
the IETF.
There are workshops for (potential?) WG Chairs; I would see merit in
more such sessions on how to work effectively within the IETF, at any
level, with a subtext of it is possible to do more, to 'advance', it is
really not (quite) impossible. Diversity would have no place in such
workshops but it could increase the candidate pool for a variety of
posts.
Tom Petch
</tp>
Margaret