Agreed. The problem here is not whether incumbents are re-appointed, but why the pool of candidates lacks diversity. This is not exactly a new problem.
Regards
Brian
(via tiny screen & keyboard)
Brian
(via tiny screen & keyboard)
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021, 19:11 Loa Andersson, <loa@xxxxx> wrote:
Bron,
I agree with John, I think it is bac practice to discuss names and
selections.
/Loa
On 23/01/2021 13:09, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021, at 15:43, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Saturday, January 23, 2021 13:29 +1100 Bron Gondwana
>> <brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Rich,
>> >
>> > You make some very interesting points here. I'm interested in
>> > whether you think the issue is with the pool of available
>> > candidates who put their hands up for roles, or with the
>> > selection process not valuing diversity sufficiently.
>> >
>> > And of course there is a related question here - regardless of
>> > which you think the root cause - because we are an
>> > organisation composed of those who show up. That question is:
>> >
>> > of the available candidates, if you had the choice, who would
>> > you have selected instead of those who were chosen? i.e. what
>> > would your "perfect" slate have been, given the candidates
>> > that were available.
>>
>>
>> Bron,
>>
>> Since Rich was one of the candidates, asking him that question
>> may be a bit unfair. More generally, I think the community
>> might be better off if we avoided second-guessing the Nomcom
>> decisions in terms of specific people and stuck instead with the
>> concerns that Rich described and Jason's response.
>
> Hi John,
>
> I would say quite the opposite. If he'd been selected and had to work
> with everyone else, then this would be an unfair question, but otherwise
> I think it's a vital question and deserves to be addressed.
>
> We see many claims that it would be better to increase the diversity of
> representation among the leadership of people along certain of the axes
> along which humans differ, and Rich has specifically taken the time to
> decry a lack of said diversity in the current leadership (both
> concluding and incoming).
>
> I'm actually particularly interested to see whether Rich suggests that
> he would have been the best choice for the role that he applied for,
> despite being white, male, cis-gendered and western. Given those facts,
> I'm interested in how he squares the request for increased diversity
> with his candidacy, given that the diversity would by definition have to
> be created by picking non-{western white male}s for other roles in the
> leadership.
>
> You can't divorce the abstract concerns from the concrete underlying
> constraints. It's nice to have those concerns in the abstract, but
> "rough consensus and running code" - you can't have a rough consensus
> that "we get more type-X person into leadership" without running "we
> encourage type-X people to run and we choose them when they do".
>
> I observe a lot of "we should have more of people not like me in
> leadership, and yet I want to keep my place in leadership" in the world,
> and it's incongruent. I don't think Rich's statement of a general goal
> can stand independent of there existing realistic pathways to achieve
> that goal, and hence I think it's fair to ask Rich what realistic
> pathway exists to have delivered a result that he would have been more
> satisfied with than this one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bron.
>
>
> --
> Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
> brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@xxxxxxxxx
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
