|
On 03/20/2013 07:16 AM, Jorge Contreras
wrote:
Jorge - did I miss something here - isnt this your job? If not why
are you here?
Let me respond that further - I believe that there are any number
of both privacy and transparency counsel's in the movement so to
speak who would love to work with such a body to create a
transparent set of participation rules UNDER THE CURRENT
PARTICIPATION MODELS AS BROKEN AS THEY ARE...
Didnt you file an ID yourself not to long ago? In fact I am betting
Professor you know any number of Grad Students who would love such a
job if you catch my drift.
Todd
Hi Stewart,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Stewart Bryant < stbryant@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Age
> Disability
> Gender reassignment
> Marriage and civil partnership
> Pregnancy and maternity
> Race
> Religion and belief
> Sex
> Sexual orientation
>
> If we are going to have an itemized list of diversity
characteristics, we should not pick and choose, we should
include the full list.
I would strongly recommend that legal counsel be consulted
before any such "list" is produced or used by
IETF/IESG/Nomcom. (FYI, this is totally outside my own area
of legal expertise, so IAOC would need to incur some expense
to hire competent counsel in this area)
While I certainly wouldn't suggest we start discriminating
based on _any_ of these factors, it is very difficult to
measure our results in some of these areas, as we do not
collect this information from IETF attendees, nor do we
publish the age, disability status, gender status, marital
status, religion or sexual orientation of our I* members.
What records *do* exist regarding the identify of IETF
leadership? Is there a central repository of at least
names/companies of IESG members and/or WG leaders?
|