I kind of promised I would not get sucked into this particular rat hole, but... The problem is with the poorly scoped use of the word "diversity". It is clear from some research that certain types of increased diversity do increase the quality of decision-making. It is also clear from rational thought that the diversity has to be scoped by "obvious" criteria such as ability to be informed about the issues, ability to express opinions, and ability to make decisions. One could argue that increasing "diversity" on the IESG by appointing a few rocks and a mollusc would improve the current IESG (and you might not find me arguing), but I don't believe this type of diversity is what was intended by the signatories. I think that the intention was to increase diversity within a set of unmentioned parameters. It might be helpful if the signatories could set out their thoughts on those parameters. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter > Sent: 12 March 2013 08:58 > To: Dan Harkins > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Diversity of IETF Leadership > > On 11/03/2013 20:02, Dan Harkins wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I would really like to see this statement either backed up by > > peer-reviewed apolitical scientific research or withdrawn by the > > signatories of the open letter. It is highly offensive. > > Speaking for myself, I do not find this statement in the least offensive. > > It turns out that there's a book on the topic, for anyone who can > get hold of it: > http://books.google.co.uk/books/princeton?hl=en&q=&vid=ISBN9780691128382 > &redir_esc=y > > Brian