Melinda Shore wrote: > 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'm having difficulties to follow (but I'm also new to diversity discussions). It is my understanding that work in the IETF is done by individual participants within Working Groups or as individuals. Review seems to happen within WGs, and the review work(load) seems to have significantly shifted from ADs to Directorates. The IETF rough consensus model with its (1- or 2-level) Last Calls is intended to ensure resolution of objections or technical concerns, even when raised by only one single IETF participant. My impression of todays IESG role, in particular taking their balloting rules and their actual balloting results into account, is more of a "confirming body" of work that happened elsewhere (primarily in the IETF, typically in IETF WGs, but also individual or interest groups submissions from elsewhere, though the latter mostly for (re)publication as informational). IMHO, the IESG is not (and maybe never was?) a committee where _each_ member reviews _all_ of the work, where _each_ forms his very own opionion, and where all of them caste a VOTE at the end, so that the diversity within that committee would be vitally beneficial (to anything). > > 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. The "leadership" in the IETF is not limtied to I* positions. To me, it appears that WG chairs (can) have (if they so desire)at least as much impact on actual work that happens in WGs as the responsible AD, and directorate review of documents is at least as relevant as reviews of individual ADs (if not more), and both of these functions (WG Chair) and directorate participation seem to require much less time&monetary investments from IETF participants than I* functions, and the positions outnumber the I* positions probably by a magnitude. -Martin