On 05/28/2016 02:53 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> the IETF has had a geographic diversity policy
> for a long time, while other forms of diversity were represented
less/later.
No, the IETF has NOT had a geographic diversity policy for its
meetings for a long time.
Maybe we disagree on what the term geographic diversity means? To me, a
policy that says "we schedule meetings on three continents because
that's where our participants are" makes it easier for people from
diverse locations to participate, and thus is a policy intended to
facilitate geographic diversity.
What's curious about this approach is that folks don't argue or object
it, whereas e.g. none in their right mind would argue something like "we
mostly prefer 'straight' people because that's what most of our
participants are".
Similarly, some folks argue that that before the IETF has scheduled
meetings in say, latinamerica, latinamerica should have a sensible
number of people -- whereas none in their right mind would argue "there
should be a sensible number of active LGBT participants before
discussing the IETF 100 venue issue".
It would seem to me that there are some groups where diversity is meant
to be applied, but others to which different "principles" apply. -- but
if all this is done in the name of diversity, one would expect
consistency, regardless of the specify "minority" that is affected.
e.g., I haven't seen an email flood regarding why latinamerica isn't
included in the rotation, or a formal response from anyone regarding
that. (Note: I'm not arguing in favor or against meeing in LATAM... just
talking about consistency here).
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492