One small aspect of this conversation struck me as needing
clarification. there is repeated reference to re-appointing incumbents.
In my view, and I think this is also the view the community has
expressed, there are significant differences among reappointing
incumbents who have served 1 term, 2 terms, and three or more terms.
While sometimes frustrating, I do understand and generally support the
bias in favor of reappointing incumbents who have done a competent job
and only served on term. In contrast, at best it indicates community
problems when we are reappointing incumbents who have already served
three terms.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/23/2021 1:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, January 23, 2021 14:48 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
<rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* And - if the problem is that the nomcom selected without
sufficient weight given to diversity, then considering a
selection that would have made Rich appointed (that's the
opposite of disappointed, right?) with the result is a
reasonable request in response to Rich's stated disappointment.
I assume you're making a joke about "the opposite". But
to be clear, if Nomcom picked me instead of Carl, the end
result would have been the same, of course, and I would still
be disappointed. One mitigating factor is that my
questionnaire was public and I tried to show how diversity is
an ongoing moral concern for me and people could bring it up
if I did not follow through. It's possible that all other
IETF Chair candidates feel the same, of course, and I'm not
saying they don't, just that we don't know.
If I were picked, however, I'd be unlikely to say anything
because I have to work closely with the rest of the slate, and
starting off by saying "I'm disappointed this is who we
have" would be stupid, for hopefully obvious reasons.
Indeed. But that is almost equally true if you expect to
continue to work in the IETF (which I hope and assume you will)
if you posted your preferred slate with the implication that you
think your candidates would be better choices --on a one by one
basis -- than those selected. In addition, I think we are
better off moving forward to improve on things for the future
rather than poking at the details of what might have been. See
below.
* Throwing our hands up and saying "it involves people, we
can't talk about it" is way problematic if we intend to do
more than wring our hands and cast generic aspersions of
systemic sexism and racism at the IETF.
I hope nothing I said sounded to you like your quotation above.
At the risk of casting a different soft of vague aspersions, too
much decision-making over the years (inside and outside the
IETF) has been contaminated by personal resentments and
animosities. Avoiding doing things that might encourage more of
them seems like a reasonable precaution.
We can talk about it without commenting on specific people.
Exactly and that is the core of what I was suggesting. The idea
of opening comments to the next Nomcom now was only intended as
a supplement for those who really did feel a need to comment on
individuals.
For example, having a very finely-tuned random number
generator used to pick volunteers from a self-selected pool
doesn't change the fact that every picked volunteer will be
self-selected. Having jobs that most people think require four
years to be able to do correctly, means that people are
unlikely to volunteer if they see an incumbent's name on the
list.
Right. And having job descriptions that can be satisfied only
by those who either (i) work for large organizations that are
willing to give up most of their time for that period while
supplying salary, travel, and other support or (ii) who has
independent means they are willing and able to dedicate that way
also rather significantly affects who is willing to volunteer...
and the diversity of the volunteers.
john
