On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:01:01AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote: > On Wed, March 20, 2013 8:35 am, Dave Crocker wrote: > > ps. A small point to watch for, if there is a focus on a defined list > > of groups, is the difference between discriminating /against/, versus > > ensuring representation /from/. Active prohibition vs. active > > solicitation. The exchange between Margaret and Stuart seemed to mix > > these. We need to be careful about the distinction. > > I have been viewing this as the difference between discriminating > against versus discriminating for. And I am against discrimination, > even that done for the best of intentions. This is certainly the biggest challenge of any intent to include diversity (of any form) in the mix. In general, we want the best people in the job in question. What is "best" depends on the position (chair, I*, etc.) but as a technical organization that runs on documents, several things will bubble to the top: - Technical clue in the matter at hand. - Reasonable administrative skills. - Ability to work with others. - Solid communication skills. For candidates wherein the above things are roughly equal - or have exceeded the requirements - diversity is a possible tie-breaker. If the intent is to emphasize diversity (for some metric) over one of the core skills, that's certainly possible. The primary challenge then is making sure there is a diverse candidate pool that satisfies the minimum core skills needed for the positions. See prior discussion on mentoring. (Note that the above observations were things I had intended to say at the administrative plenary, but I appeared to be standing at the invisible mic.) -- Jeff