On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/20/2013 11:41 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: >> >> Given that folks are still debating whether this years nominees >> reflected a reasonable diversity (there were 9 women out of 37 >> nominees), > > I actually don't think that the number of female nominees is relevant. > What is relevant is the number of qualified female nominees who had the > willingness, the availability, the required expertise, and the support > necessary to fill the position. [MB] Sure. But, I know of at least two that I don't think or would hope anyone would debate were qualified in all the areas you suggest. Both have contributed significantly to IETF in a variety of leadership positions. I do not believe at least one of the choices would have stood up against scrutiny by my own HR dept. Certainly, you have opinions, as does the IETF population that is in the majority, as to what makes one qualified. One concept that is not very well understood, however, is the basic fact that women work differently than men and thus expecting us to fit the cookie cutter of IETF leaders isn't quite appropriate. To be told by a nomcom voting member, when I mention this fact, that this just isn't so because IETF is a meritocracy is insulting and shows a sheer lack of respect for the value that diversity brings to an organization. [/MB] > > On several occasions in the past decade I've been asked if I were willing to > be nominated to serve on IESG again, even though I didn't have either > sufficient time or support to devote to the task, just so that nomcom would > have a slate of candidates to compare. I thought on those occasions, and > still think, that it's a bit silly to ask nomcom to investigate candidates > who don't have the time or support to do the job. But I still agreed to be > nominated because I could also see some value in having nomcom compare > several candidates. (Just like when shopping for a new car, it doesn't hurt > to look at models that you know that you're probably not going to buy, just > to get a sense of whether you really want what you think you want). > > So I guess I've formed the impression that merely being nominated for a > position doesn't really mean that a person is available. [MB] You have to keep in mind in the past that the there were "dummies" in the nominee pool before open list. I was explicitly told by this year's nomcom chair that they were not doing that. Thus, I would anticipate that the majority of those in the pool this year were willing and able.[/MB] > > Keith >