I am glad to see the IETF beginning to have this conversation about diversity. I am concerned that, as an organization, we avoid becoming locked into entrenched, polarizing positions, though. Some of us will take the view that qualified people may not be taking on, or may not be selected to fill, positions of authority within IETF because of structural barriers within the organization. Some qualified people may feel that they personally don't belong, in social terms, or they may be excluded because of economic costs that are greater than they can bear. On the other hand, other members may insist that individuals make their own choices, and that those who currently hold the various positions work very hard and make a range of sacrifices and compromises in order to meet the requirements of the offices. If we look at other organizations that have wrestled with diversity issues, we will see that many people argue that such initiatives may result in less qualified people, and people whose interest is in diversity rather than in technology, making it into positions of authority. Some members of our organization will therefore be concerned that technical decision-making will suffer and that the people who really care about the technical decisions will end up bearing even more of the organization's workload than they already do. Somehow we have to come up with an approach that fosters bringing in the talents of those who may currently be overlooked but also continues to put the organization's mandate first. Our goal as an organization must be to make sure that we are, in fact, welcoming and accessible, so that people who are deeply interested in the technological issues can and will take on an active role and move into positions of authority. The question is how to do this. I think we must first understand our own position within the larger social context. There has been a recession, which has hit some parts of the world harder than others and has hit different industries and industry players differently. A couple of years ago, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the workforce in Silicon Valley had in some respects become less diverse in the previous eight years (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14383730). The New York Times reported, around the same time, that women seemed not to be graduating in computer science in as large numbers as they had 15 or 20 years ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=1&;). It may therefore be the case that in part, membership in our organization is reflecting wider trends. On the other hand, general trends ought not to cause us to stick our heads in the sand and refuse even to examine the issue. We should also consider that increased diversity could come through different pathways: we could increase our international membership, or we could increase the racial and gender diversity of our North American and European membership. It may even be that if we increase our international membership, the percentage of women in our organization may decline, since it may be that women computer scientists and engineers are even rarer outside North America and Europe. I say "may" because I don't know the statistics, but I do think that expanding our reach into the world may lead to results we don't expect as well as results we do. One key aspect of our considerations, I think, has to be the broad question of how we draw new people into the organization. Attending the conferences has to be important. If there are barriers to attendance, those barriers would need to be considered. We should think about where we hold our conferences, how long it takes to get to them, how much it costs to participate, and whether we make it possible to be really involved remotely. We should minimize travel time and the cost of travel, in both money and time. Maybe we should think about some mechanism for subsidizing people who travel long distances, especially if they don't work for big companies. Maybe we should offer daycare. It would seem to me that there would be something to be said for looking very carefully at the processes for choosing venues and setting attendance costs. We should meet in different parts of the world. We should not treat meeting in Vancouver or Hawaii as equivalent to meeting in Asia. We should plan our meetings with the dual goal of increasing our attractiveness to new members and minimizing the commitment of time and money for existing members, because these are the goals that we seek to achieve through our meetings that are most important for our organization as a whole. Once we have qualified people involved in IETF, we want to draw them into greater roles within the organization. There are serious structural problems here, though. Being seriously involved requires volunteering many hours every week or month - sometimes almost the equivalent of a full-time job. We have to understand that most people who take on positions of authority within IETF have companies paying their salaries, companies that can afford to have them doing much less company work in the short term so that the company can benefit in the long term. It should hardly be surprising that, especially in a recession (when the share prices of smaller outfits and the ambitions of their founders are in a soberer state) it would be large companies that would be willing and able to fund these positions. It may well also be the case that within these companies, it is less likely to be women or racial minorities who are in a position to ask for full pay for part-time work. Since we have rely on voluntary labour, we maybe should think about structuring the time and money issues so that they can be workable for people from smaller companies and other parts of the world. I don't know how to do that, but I raise the question for discussion. I think it is important that we foster on-ramps into the organization, so that we can welcome promising people into worthwhile, flexible work that will be good for their careers as well as good for the organization as a whole. Perhaps the Areas should do some outreach, into regions or new companies or even university graduate programs. I really don't know the answer. It seems to me that maybe a good way to start would be to have an open conversation structured around the question "what drew you to IETF and why did you stay?" The flip side, of course, would be "and where did your colleagues go, the ones who have not come back?" I think Jari's proposal to get a group looking at this seems like a good starting point. Cullen On Mar 10, 2013, at 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity <ietf.diversity@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The letter below was sent to the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC and the ISOC Board this morning, in an attempt to open a discussion of how to increase the diversity of the IETF Leadership. We are sharing the letter here to encourage community discussion of this important topic. > > If you support this letter and would like to be added as a signatory, please send e-mail to ietf.diversity@xxxxxxxxx, and your name will be added to the list of signatures. > > --- > > ** An Open Letter to the IESG, the IAB, the IAOC and the ISOC Board ** > > Dear Members of the IETF Leadership, > > We would like to call your attention to an issue that weakens the > IETF's decision-making process and calls into question the > legitimacy of the IETF as an International Standards Development > Organization: the lack of diversity of the IETF leadership. > > In addition to the moral and social issues involved, diversity of > leadership across several axes (race, geographic location, gender > and corporate affiliation) is important for three practical reasons: > > - It is a well-established fact that diverse groups are smarter > and make better decisions than less-diverse groups. > > - Lack of diversity in our leadership becomes a self-perpetuating > problem, because people who are not represented in the IETF > leadership are less likely to dedicate their time and effort to > the IETF. > > - The lack of diversity in the IETF leadership undermines our > credibility and challenges our legitimacy as an International > Standards Development Organization. > > Unfortunately, despite a substantial increase in the number of IETF > leadership positions (from 25 to 32) and increasingly diverse > attendance at IETF meetings, the diversity of the IETF leadership has > not improved. In fact, it seems to have dropped significantly over > the past ten years. > > For example, ten years ago, in February of 2003, there were 25 members > of the IETF leadership (12 IAB members and 13 IESG members). Of those > 25 members, there was one member of non-European descent, there was one > member from a country outside of North America or Europe, and there were > four women. There were 23 companies represented in the IETF leadership > (out of a total of 25 seats). > > In February of 2013, there were 32 members of the IETF leadership > (12 IAB members, 15 IESG members and 5 IAOC members). Of those 32 > members, there was one member of non-European descent, there were no > members from countries outside of North America or Europe, and there > was only one woman. There were only 19 companies represented (out of > a total of 32 seats). > > It is important to the continued relevance and success of the IETF > that we address this issue and eliminate whatever factors are > contributing to the lack of diversity in our leadership. We believe > that this is an important and urgent issue that requires your > immediate attention. > > There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within > our existing BCPs, to address this problem: > > - Each of the IETF leadership bodies (the IESG, IAB and IAOC) > could update the qualifications that they submit to the > Nominations Committee (through the IAD) to make it clear that > the Nominations Committee should actively seek to increase the > diversity of that body in terms of race, geographic location, > gender and corporate affiliation. > > - Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the > IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a > public statement at the beginning of each year's nominations > process that they will not confirm a slate unless it > contributes to increased diversity within the IETF leadership, > or it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of what > steps were taken to select a more diverse slate and why it was > not possible to do so. > > - The ISOC President could continue to select Nominations > Committee Chairs who understand the value of diversity and are > committed to increasing the diversity of the IETF. > > - The Nominations Committee could be offered resources or > training on the value of diversity, techniques to recruit a > more diverse candidate pool, and/or information about how to > minimize conflict-of-interest and personal bias in their > selection process. > > We also feel that more substantial and longer-term changes may be > needed to fully address this issue. Therefore, we request that the > new IETF Chair assemble a design team (with diverse membership, of > course) to determine the causes of this problem and to make > suggestions for longer-term solutions to be considered by the IETF. > > We are committed to working within the IETF to make the changes > that are needed to correct this serious issue. > > Best Regards, > > (In alphabetical order) > > Bernard Aboba > Cathy Aronson > Alia Atlas > Mary Barnes > Mohamed Boucadair > Brian Carpenter > Stuart Cheshire > Alissa Cooper > Spencer Dawkins > Roni Even > Janet Gunn > Stephen Hanna > Ted Hardie > Sam Hartman > Fangwei Hu > Geoff Huston > Christian Jacquenet > Mirjam Kuehne > Olaf Kolkman > Suresh Krishnan > Barry Leiba > Ted Lemon > Kepeng Li > Dapeng Liu > Allison Mankin > Bill Manning > Kathleen Moriarty > Monique Morrow > Nurani Nimpuno > Matt Nottingham > Erik Nordmark > Karen O'Donoghue > Iuniana Oprescu > Jaqueline Queiroz > Hosnieh Rafiee > Pete Resnick > Lea Roberts > Simon Pietro Romano > Peter Saint-Andre > Eve Schooler > Rifaat Shekh-Yusef > Larissa Shapiro > Melinda Shore > Barbara Stark > Brian Trammel > Tina Tsou > Justin Uberti > Margaret Wasserman > Renee Wilson-Burstein > James Woodyatt > Lucy Yong > Jessica Yu > Lixia Zhang >