Hi Melinda, At 19:22 12-04-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
to be the best. Pretty much every organization that applauds itself for its meritocratic reward structure (to the extent that an I* gig is a "reward") and yet only advances white guys says the same thing. It is a trope, and a familiar one.
If you pick an Area Director who does not do the work the effects will be apparent within the area and during IESG evaluation. If you pick a Working Group Chair who does not do the work the effects will only be visible within the working group. The Area Director will probably step in and to limit damage. If you pick an IAB members who does not do the work the effects will not be visible. That applies for IAOC members too.
Michael Richardson commented about the "apparent bias that we are experiencing" [1]. The Area Directors, except for two of them, work for large vendors. Is there a bias in favor of vendors? I don't think so; large vendors have money and can afford to provide funding support. Is the problem about women being qualified and not having having met enough people that the person's qualifications has been recognized? I don't know.
Andrw Sullivan provided a cautionary tale [2] about quotas. My reason for not favoring quotas is that the entire atmosphere will be poisoned. I would not try to convince anyone about that. My opinion is what Andrew Sullivan mentioned; it is incredibly hard for women to be treated as colleagues in an environment that acts overwhelmingly as a male club. An alternative is to have more women, not as tokens, but as persons who can make the environment less harsh.
What's missing in the discussion is how to make that happen. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78626.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78637.html