On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, SM,
This may be a misprint ...
On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female.
0.1% of IAB members are female
0 % of IESG members are female.
Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more "diverse". The IAOC already collects gender-related information. The other information requested in the meeting registration form is strictly for meeting attendance purposes. The sensitive questions referred to above have nothing to do with meeting attendance.
With respect, this is sampling noise. 12.5% of 8 is 1. Don't get me wrong—it's great that we have some diversity on the IAOC, but I don't think anybody should be patting themselves on the back just yet!
What diversity is the IAOC measuring?
By my count, the current IAB membership is 15 (12 Nomcom-selected, plus the IETF chair, plus the ExecDir, plus the IRTF Chair - these last two are ex-officio and non-voting).
If the IAB means "members", the number for females, as far as I know(*), is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the number for females is 1/13, or just under 8 percent.
Other diversities also matter, and I'm just doing math here (**).
Agreed, however, it would seem to me that at least one question that one might as is whether these percentages are representative of the IETF population at large.
--dmm
Spencer
(*) In my spare time, I'm co-president of PFLAG Dallas, which is a local chapter of PFLAG, an abbreviated abbreviation of "Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual _and Transgender_ people", so I know I can't claim definitive knowledge on who's what ... only on what people appear to be.
(**) I think diversity matters, and didn't want us to look less gender-diverse than we are ...