I signed the letter and my answers to your questions are below [MB]. I would posit that a number of others have answers not unlike my own. Mary. On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure I have enough data to evaluate the comments in this letter. I > don't disagree with the general goal "diversity is good". I do believe that > the proposed actions are not realistic in that they would tend to make the > Nomcom process even more moribund. I will note that Appendix A suggests, > but does not require the Nomcom to consider diversity in the appointment of > IAB members (and doing diversity on a company basis can sometimes fight with > doing diversity on a minority, gender or geographic basis). > > But I have a more fundamental set of questions with respect to the data on > trend stated by the letter - that we're becoming less diverse. > > 1) Is there a "statistically significant" difference in the composition of > the set of the working group chairs and the set of the members of the IESG > and IAB taken together for the 10 years mentioned? It was pointed out to > me that it is pretty much a hard requirement that members of those bodies > have previous experience as a WG chair, so THAT is the set with which the > IESG and IAB membership should be compared, not the IETF as a whole. > > 2) Of the people who signed this letter > a) Who have been working group chairs? [MB] I've chaired RAI area WGs since 2006. I have chaired DISPATCH WG since 2009 and CLUE since 2011. > b) Who would be willing to volunteer for > i) the Nomcom [MB] I served as Nomcom chair in the past. [/MB] > ii) the IAB [MB] I currently serve as IAB executive director. [/MB] > iii) the IESG? [MB] I have been a nominee for RAI (and other areas) at least 6 times. [/MB > c) Whose employers (or other supporting organization) would be willing to > support their participation in [MB] Obviously, I have had employers that have supported in all the roles and currently support me in the roles in which I am currently serving. [/MB] > i) the Nomcom > ii) the IAB > iii) the IESG? > > 3) Same set of questions for the IETF as a whole. I'd really like to get an > understanding of the size and composition of the intersection of the set of > current/past WG chairs and the set of "my employer will support me doing the > IESG job". > > I've had a few conversations on this topic already at the current meeting > and at least three conversations went: "I don't have time (or support) for > the IESG, but I really think I could be an asset to the IAB". E.g. the IESG > takes significantly more time than the IESG. [MB] I think you mean IESG takes more time than IAB. I would certainly agree with that but I do not believe there was a shortage of nominees/volunteers to serve in IESG positions this year. [/MB] > > > My take is that a) WG chair and b) employer support are the two objective > criteria in the Nomcom process. > > I would hesitate to eliminate the "must have been a WG chair" as criteria as > its one of the few internal-to-the-IETF opportunities to observe or evaluate > candidate abilities. But then we need to figure out if we're doing what we > can to diversify the WG chairs without adversely affecting the WGs. > > For employer support - we're either stuck with the current situation, or we > shrink the job to increase the number of people (and employers) willing to > do the job, or we figure out how to get third party support for given > positions. Unless and until we do this, we have to live with the set of > candidates for things like the IESG being a lot smaller than the IETF as a > whole. > > What ever we come up with, I'd really like it to be actionable and > objective. [MB] My personal opinion is that these are not our biggest issues in increasing diversity, with the exception of corporate/sponsor diversity. They are certainly general issues and challenges that we are faced with as a whole. [/MB] > > Mike > > > > > > At 06:22 AM 3/10/2013, IETF Diversity 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 > >