On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote: > > I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important. > >> There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within >> our existing BCPs, to address this problem: >> >> - 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. > > I'd ask that people think about what the confirming bodies should be willing to say, along these lines. It seems a bit strong to me, but I'm not sure what the community is comfortable with. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the above statement. Yes, diversity is a good thing, and I'm all for it. However, I don't think it is a fundamental goal; the fundamental goal is (as Jari said) to get the best people for the job from the available talent pool. I don't know that political correctness automatically helps there. For the noncom, if there is a choice between two people of equal capability, diversity considerations can be useful in selection (pick the person who is not a north american or european white male). But when it comes to confirmation of a slate, the confirming body is not being asked whether there are enough little green women, it's being asked whether the individuals selected and the resulting committees (the IAB, the IESG, or whatever) will be effective and competent in the role. A statement like "Send us more little green women" from a confirming body to the noncom makes some important assumptions: that there were little green women to choose from, that they were equally or more competent than the person selected, and so on. The confirming body is not privy to the discussions of the noncom, and isn't told why a given individual was not selected, only the arguments for those selected. That makes all such assumptions pretty dubious. I'd prefer that confirmation processes stick to fundamental goals, not political correctness. If you want to encourage the noncom to consider diversity in its deliberations, fine. But not the confirming bodies.