Melinda, I'm not so sure debating the merits of a specific measure has value or not is really that helpful, and I probably just should have ignore this small point. Let's say some limited measure of diversity is valid, what do we learn from it? Is the conclusion that only one group is being discriminated against and that the IETF needs to address this one specific form of discrimination, or is it that the top of the IETF is far from diverse? If the latter, I buy it -- the IETF has a diversity issue. As many others have said, there are many forms of bias and discrimination -- all of which are harmful, and only some of which have the legal protection (in your favorite country) that they should. Irrespective of any specific statistic, I think this discussion has shown that there is consensus that working to eliminate bias and discrimination *in all forms* from the IETF is worth paying attention to. Do you disagree, are you saying that the IETF should only/first try to address only gender bias? I personally think all IETF participants should have voice in this discussion, no matter if they fall into an obviously discriminated against group or not. This includes the full range of participants, even newcomers, folks who have never authored an I-D, folks who by any measure are significant I* contributors, and even "western white guys". IMO the exclusion of any voice is itself a manifestation of bias. Lou On 4/12/2013 10:22 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 4/12/13 1:26 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >> No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question >> that I don't understand be substantiated. > > And I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive > of bias. We can take a swing at getting a very rough handle on > that but I'm actually not sure that we should because it appears > to be the case that the cost of any remediation that some of us > might want to undertake would be higher than the cost of living > with bias in the system (this would be the considerable downside > to consensus decision-making processes with a very large participant > base). > >>> And I don't know if you intended to or not, but what you >>> communicated is "The best candidates are nearly always >>> western white guys," since that's who's being selected. >>> That's a problematic suggestion. >> >> I certainly, in no way, shape, or form intended such an implication. I >> have not idea how one could read it that way, [ ... ] > > A (male) friend once said that men are no more likely to notice > sexism than fish are to notice water. I think that was far > too broad but generally true. If I think that white western > men are being selected in disproportion to their presence in > the candidate pool, and I do, then telling me that "we only > choose the best" is telling me that white, western men tend > 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. > > Melinda > > > >