On Wed, March 20, 2013 10:01 am, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > 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. By "that", I take it you mean it's certainly possible to discriminate in favor some metric of diversity and against a core skill. So? Is that the intent? There is quite a bit of dancing around this subject and it would be nice to say what we all mean here. If you're proposing that IETF start the practice of discriminating against certain people then say so. > 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. You snipped my other question. So let me ask again. What do we do if, after ensuring that there's a diverse candidate pool that satisfies the minimum core skills needed for positions, the end result is more white men? Do we stop with the pretense of ensuring diversity of opportunity and just proceed to diversity of result? Do we enshrine the "soft bigotry of low expectations"? Dan.