At 12:51 PM 4/29/2013, Melinda Shore wrote: >On 4/29/13 1:11 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> The other thing to remember is that whilst your proportional estimates >> are likely to be correct, in a random process you will get long runs of >> "bias" that only average out in the long run. > >Right, although if "normal" statistical fluctuation gives us >a long period of woman-free leadership, somewhere in your long >run we might expect the same statistical fluctuation >to deliver unto us a stretch in which women are overrepresented >in the leadership. Hi Melinda - Actually, look at the time frame around 2004-5. Multiple women on the IAB and multiple women on the IESG. Almost double the expected value of "2" given the WG proportions. One of the things I saw, but didn't comment on elsewhere, was that I had noted that a number of the women who had participated as IESG or IAB members have since stopped participating (attending actually) IETF meetings. I didn't comment on it because I didn't have a good feel for whether that proportion was higher or lower than the men who have been IESG/IAB members and are now not participating. Analysis of this might yield some data on whether or not we're losing long term female participants at a higher rate than long term male participants - if so, it may be worthwhile to ask former members the "why" question to see if there's anything we can do to mitigate. Long term participants appear (my opinion) to be more attractive candidates for IAB/IESG positions. Mike >Melinda