Re: IETF Diversity

On 06/19/2013 05:09 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 6/19/13 2:47 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 06/19/2013 11:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of
> > > practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or
> > > management positions are men.
> > So again, it's not at all clear how that relates to the IETF (given
> > that we don't fall into the category of "the overwhelming majority of
> > practitioners [are women]."
> I think the point was that if organizations that have a majority of
> women in the ranks have trouble getting women into leadership roles
> (where one would think, ceterus paribus, women would have an easier time
> moving up as against other organizations), then an organization that has
> a majority male population won't fare much better unless there's some
> reason to believe it is interestingly different.
Yes, Pete, I understand what the point was supposed to be. The point *I* 
am making is that unless you have a solid understanding of the 2 
populations the comparison is not only at best meaningless, it is almost 
certainly actively harmful because it leads to a short-circuit of the 
very path to understanding that is required to actually address the 
problem. I could count all of the unfounded assumptions you're making 
just in the paragraph above for you, but you're a smart guy, I'm sure 
you can take that on as a side project if you're interested.
> Institutional biases in organizations are not uncommon. We almost
> certainly have *some* brand of it here, whether it's Americo-centrism
> (cf. SM's comments about Selma and Dan's comments about baseball),
So again, there is absolutely zero evidence that those kinds of comments 
are a form of institutional bias. The fact that people use cultural 
references that they are familiar with IS evidence that they are human, 
but you cannot extrapolate from Ted's comment (directed at Melinda who 
Ted had a reasonable belief would be familiar with it) that Ted is de 
facto biased against non-Americans. In fact, one of the things I enjoy 
about working in the I* realm is being exposed to other cultures, and 
learning a bit about their culture, idioms, humor, etc. And $DEITY 
forbid we actually achieve some of that diversity stuff, how are you 
going to react to even MORE people bringing their own cultural 
experience to bear in the IETF?!? The nerve of them!
> or
> one of gender. I'd be (happily) shocked if there were some reason to
> believe that we're different than other organizations when it comes to
> gender,
For the Nth time now, let me be clear that I do not think we have zero 
problems in this area. But "we can improve" is different from "we have a 
widespread and deep-seated problem with institutional bias." More about 
the importance of the distinction below.
> but I haven't seen much to convince me we're all that different.
... remember what you said to me about anecdotes vs. data? :)

> Certainly we should look for evidence of the existence and nature of any
> biases that exist in our institutional practices, but given how
> prevalent such biases are elsewhere, I'm not uncomfortable presuming
> prima facia that we do have some and doing some things that might
> (again, surprisingly to me) turn out unnecessary.
I find this perspective highly disturbing, and potentially very dangerous.

> > I look at women like Leslie Daigle, Allison Mankin, Margaret
> > Wasserman, Lynn St. Amour, Joyce Reynolds ... those are just off the
> > top of my head; certainly not my intention to slight anyone ... all of
> > whom have now, or have had significant leadership roles, and made
> > lasting impacts on the IETF both in its work product and culture.
> As the saying goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but it might
> be interesting to discuss with each of the people you noted their
> experiences getting into leadership and their experiences in it.
Assuming they (and other similar folks) are willing, I agree. Just to be 
clear, I was not volunteering anyone for anything. :)
> > Can we (and should we) do better? Absolutely. I would love to see more
> > participation by different groups, nationalities, genders, etc. And I
> > have a vested interest here. I have a daughter who is smart as a whip,
> > and when it comes time for her to find a job I want to be sure that
> > every door is open to her.
> Agree wholeheartedly.
>
> > But I also think it's possible for us to agree that we have room to
> > improve without constantly banging the drum that we have a deep-seated
> > institutional bias, especially when that point is far from proven.
> Even if such a bias does not exist, it can come across a bit
> self-serving to complain about the banging drum.
Agreed, which is why I have waited so long to speak up.

> So someone has said
> there is an institutional bias against the (minority and not in
> leadership) group they are in and for the (majority and in leadership)
> group you are in... No use in getting insulted or complaining about the
> words used to express that perception.
Well I'm sorry to say, I actually DO find it insulting. There has been a 
near-constant undercurrent from one person particularly, with ripples 
vibrating through a few other ponds, that the IETF is biased generally; 
and against women particularly. As someone who is part of the 
organization, and worse yet one of those privileged (by the standards of 
many) white (gasp!) males (oh my!) I fall into the category of those 
against whom this accusation is being made, and I don't appreciate it. 
And while I try very hard not to get offended on behalf of other people, 
I personally think the (baseless, to date) accusation is insulting to 
the many people I know in the IETF of all genders, nationalities, etc. 
in whom I have not only never seen a trace of bias, but in fact have 
often seen quite the opposite. Furthermore I think that blanket 
statements of the sort "women cannot get ahead in the I* without 
institutional help" is more than a little insulting to those women who 
have, in fact, been very successful leaders already, in every sense of 
the word.
But I do agree with you about one thing, my hurt feelings (however noble 
they may, or may not be) are essentially meaningless. What I AM 
concerned about though is what the larger negative effect of the 
drum-beating is likely to be. If you want to assume that there is bias, 
go right ahead. I don't really care what your motivation is for 
encouraging outreach and equal opportunity, as long as we're working on 
the same goals.
> Looking to make sure that there
> is no bias and addressing any biases you find is a good use of time and
> energy.
I agree with the latter, I do not agree with the former. If there are 
real examples of bias that are known, they definitely should be 
addressed. If the organization believes that we have a problem, and 
wants to spend precious resources on a proper study to answer that 
question, well, Ok then. However we've already demonstrated that people 
are very bad at extrapolating useful conclusions from anecdotes, I don't 
think encouraging people to do more of that is a useful exercise.
... and it's not for nothing that a couple of people much smarter than 
me have posted some preliminary data analysis that seems to demonstrate 
that the believed bias problem does not exist. I find it interesting 
that their work has been ignored and/or shouted down since it doesn't 
fit the narrative.
> > > > ... and while we're on that topic, what are you doing to help?
> > > That is truly an unfortunate line of argument, and I hope
> > > you don't use it very often.
> > It's not a "line of argument," it's a legitimate question.
> It did sound a bit confrontational in the original message. The MIME
> Intonation Protocol being what it is, this can sometimes be an
> unintended problem. I will take full blame for the lack of deployment of
> that protocol.
... and I will take full blame for not making my purpose more complete. 
I thought it was obvious from context, but I can see how it could have 
been interpreted differently.
> > Others have described their actions to help improve the situation,
> > which hopefully still others can latch onto and emulate. You bring a
> > unique perspective to the table, so I'm hoping that you can describe
> > what you're doing to help solve the problem so that others can emulate
> > your example.
> That's a reasonable request. People should in general describe
> experiences and volunteer whatever advice they can for the community.
> However, do keep in mind that some things folks might do (especially
> folks in the minority population) are not things that they necessarily
> want to talk about it public.
Of course.

> For example, if some folks were helping
> women off-list to deal with incidents of harassment or sexist behavior,
> or simply poor treatment that seemed different than how males were
> treated, they might not feel comfortable talking about that publicly
> because it would bring up some thorny issues that are difficult to
> discuss in private, let alone in public. And there are certainly other
> things of less serious import that are still dicey to lay open in
> public. So it's probably at least a bit pushy to individualize a message
> saying "what are you doing to help?".
I see your point, however I really think it should go without saying 
that what you describe above isn't what I was referring to (assuming 
what you're describing is actually occurring at all).
To be totally clear, I'm interested in what the women actively involved 
in the IETF now are doing, have in mind to do, or think should be done 
to encourage more active participation by women; both those who are 
"involved" but not "active" currently, and those who have no current 
association with the IETF at all. As a PWM I would not want to presume 
to tell women how to best get other women involved, I think it's much 
better to hear it from them.
Doug