On 3/20/13 3:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > While I agree that it helps avoiding a "few big vendors" bias. > is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a > non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where > simply more diversity in the I* leadership would bring a noticable > improvement--without that same change adversely affecting the amount > and quality of the *other* IETF output? I think it would improve the quality of stewardship and review, and the understanding of what's going on in the industry and where the needs and priorities are. I also think that the very distinct western bias in the leadership means that there's a distinct lack of familiarity with deployment and management models being used (or assumed) by a growing portion of IETF participants. I also expect that I am not the only participant who's a consultant and at least partly self-funded and regularly coming to meetings, but there will always be folks saying that we don't exist, even as people seem to not want to acknowledge that there were a lot of women who'd accepted IESG nominations this cycle. But, I do think that given our decision-making structures and so on, and given the speed with which people I thought knew better zoomed over to the "NO QUOTAS!" place when the issue was raised, this situation is basically irreparable. Melinda