At 13:46 11-04-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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.
If I use the 13% I can say that the IAB is more
"diverse" than the IAOC. Some organizations use
political arithmetic to look good.
At 13:21 11-04-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
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!
Yes.
At 13:09 11-04-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
I think skewed surveys are a worse basis for
planning policy than just using common sense
(yes, I know that's just another name for our
biases). Surveys lend a scientific aura to data
that is effectively non-representative.
Yes.
At 17:40 11-04-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
However. The question that would answer (approximately)
is whether or not there's bias in the nomcom process.
My own feeling is that if we were to find that the
numbers supported the notion that there's bias
present in the system we probably couldn't do anything
about it without tearing the organization apart, so,
we live with bias, and trying to identify whether or
not there's bias in the nomcom process would be something
along the general lines of opening the gates of hell
and we'd probably be better off not knowing for sure.
Yes.
The concern mentioned in the message from the
IAOC is about diversity. The definition I found for diversity is:
"the condition of having or being composed of differing elements,
the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different
races or cultures) in a group"
Is that the definition the IAOC is using?
Regards,
-sm