On 4/1/2013 11:09 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
The most important insight is that diversity is not a "problem" that
can be "fixed" by some set of measures, but a process that needs to be
ongoing.
+1
-- Reducing situations that are perceived as hostile by members of
specific groups.
-- Working on incentive structures that are useful for diverse groups.
Reference to 'diversity' often simplifies to some statistics about
representation of various, identified groups, without considering the
pragmatics (and effects) of having diversity. Lack of diversity is, as
you note, considered a "problem" that is fixed by improving some
statistics and reducing the group's range permissible topics. This
makes the group environment more restrictive, rather than richer.
Such discussions will make polite reference to the need for cultural
sensitivities, and the like, but don't actually grapple with the
pragmatics of changing the group culture. Besides a basic sense of
fairness, what sorts of group changes in behavior are we looking for?
These can be cast as affirmative /improvements/ in the culture.
What I like most about your note is that it seeks to consider this
question. The term "diversity" is essentially about inputs to the
group. Your note suggests thinking about what I'll conveniently call
outputs of the group -- outputs to itself...
If we combine this line of consideration with the need for statistical
diversity, we can seriously talk about ways to adjust IETF culture to
maintain what we like and need in the IETF, and remove what we find
counter-productive.
I don't even know what other people
might perceive as hostile; that would be good input for the design
team.
+1
We currently have a culture that is extraordinarily accepting of
behaviors that are highly unprofessional, to the point of having chairs
and area directors refusing to pursue ad hominem attacks. An
environment like that is particularly untenable to anyone from a culture
that emphasizes politeness.
What can we
improve with respect to the incentive structures for other groups,
say, people from operators or from small businesses?
I suppose the first requirement is to identify the groups we want to
provide with better incentives. You've cited academics and operators,
of course. Who else?
Then the question is to guess at the sorts of changes, either in /what/
we do, or /how/ we do it, that might constitute improved incentives.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net