At 03:30 PM 4/29/2013, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >Hi Mike, > >On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> We have an IETF culture - like it or not. It changes over time, as the population changes. We can't and shouldn't expect to be able to change it by fiat, or to adopt as whole cloth a bias free culture (for some values of bias). > > >How you do you think a culture evolves to be more inclusive? Might that start with discussions like these? I believe your statement implies some preconceptions - that you believe the IETF culture is not inclusive enough and that more inclusiveness will benefit the IETF. I'm not sure there's evidence to support the first - hence the numerical analysis. It may be the case that "we're not inclusive enough" is a correct evaluation, but see Stewart's note on the human tendency to impute patterns into random results. I would ask this instead - "How does the IETF evolve to continue to be an effective, efficient, and relevant source of high quality Internet standards?" If one of the answers to that question necessarily involves inclusiveness, then the conversation should go forward on that topic, but preferably not in isolation, not as the "fix this now" knee jerk (my perception) type of activity that seems to be going on. Let me ask a couple of specific questions of you. Who have you mentored in the past 5 years? Have they ended up as working group chairs, or ADs or IAB members? Do they mostly represent under-represented groups? How many of them were employed by your employer (e.g. was this a work related task?)? During your time as an AD, how many women did you arm twist/recruit specifically (or ask nicely) to take WG positions in your area (as opposed to them coming to you or your co-AD)? How many non-employee, under-represented population attendees is your current employer supporting to go to the IETF? Have you addressed this with your employer? Why is the inclusiveness question more of an IETF question, as opposed to one of personal actions? I'm asking the above, because I'm trying to get a calibration on what you mean by inclusiveness and how important it actually is for you, and possibly for your employer. Mike >Margaret