retransmited (not received at IETF or published) On 4/29/13, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > (sorry for my long message, will try to improve) > > I like the concept and reasoning of your message, and would like to > add, is there other reasons for the results and conclusion your > message got to? Is there something we can fix in the ietf-culture or > ietf-procedures to make the diversity more established? I think that > female managers/leaders are important to any world-organisation to get > successful, and to be specific, I will recommend all world NPOs > (Non-Profit Org.) need gender diversity (male or female, which one may > be minority) at *least* 10-20 percent of management teams. An NPO with > all male or all female management is not successful for the world of > diverse *gender* and *users*. Management skills if gender-diversed > will reflect better community involvement, choices, culture, and > decisions. > > IMHO, Organisation Management objectives are to make 1) *users* > increase in numbers, 2) increase in diverse, and 3) increase in > satisfaction. If only present/current users select the management > there is no dought that their decisions reflect users-culture and > awareness, but do they increase the three objectives. > > My concerns in the diversity issue is to focus on the diversity of > *management-gender* and *ietf-users* to benefit future decisions and > make *awareness* into the ietf-culture. Your message discussed both > but for the diversity of ietf-users not in similar depth compared with > gender, which I think you may help me understand/evaluate its diverse > in ietf. > > Regards, > AB > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net> > To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw at lilacglade.org>,t.p. <daedulus at > btconnect.com> > Cc: ietf at ietf.org > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:05:37 -0400 > >>Let's consider for a moment that this may not actually be the correct >> question. Instead, consider "Why the diversity of the IETF leadership >> doesn't reflect the diversity of the set of the IETF WG chairs"? I >> believe this is a more representative candidate population for the IAB and >> IESG. > > By my count (using the WG chairs picture page), there are 202 current > working group chairs. Of these 15 are female - or 7.4% of the > population [It would be more reliable to do this for any WG chair in > the last 5-10 years, but the above was readily available and I think > provides at least the basis for discussion. Anticipating the > argument, I would assume for the sake of discussion a fairly similar > percentage of ex-working group chairs per gender unless there is > evidence to the contrary] > > There are 14 (current area directors plus the chair) members of the > IESG, of which none are currently female. > > There are 12 current IAB members of which 1 member is female. > > Assuming perfect distribution, that would suggest that 14 * (15/202) > or 1.03 IESG members should be female. > > Assuming perfect distribution, that would suggest that 12 * (15/202) > or .89 IAB members should be female. > > Assuming perfect distribution, that would suggest that 26 * (15/202) > or 1.93 IAB + IESG members should be female. > > And pretending for a moment that picks for the IAB and IESG are > completely random from the candidate set of Working group chairs, the > binomial distribution for 7.4% for 27 positions is: > > 0 - 12.5%, 1 - 27.0%, 2 - 28.1%, 3 or more - 32.5%. (e.g. about 40% > of the time, the IAB and IESG combined will have 0 or 1 female > members). > > for 7.4% for 15 positions (IESG) is: > 0 - 31.4%, 1 - 37.8%, 2 - 21.2%, 3 or more - 9.5% > > for 7.4% for 12 positions (IAB) is: > 0 - 39.6%, 1 - 38.1%, 2 - 16.8%, 3 or more - 5.4% > > > But the actual one you should consider is 7.4% for 14 positions > (annual replacement): > 0 - 34%, 1 - 38.1%, 2 - 19.9%, 3 or more - 8%. > > This last one says that for any given nomcom selection, assuming > strict random selection, 72% of the time 0 or 1 females will be > selected across both the IAB and IESG. You should use this one as the > actual compositions of the IAB/IESG are the sum of all the nomcom > actions that have happened before. > > There are statistical tests to determine whether there is a > statistically significant difference in populations, but my admittedly > ancient memories of statistics suggest that the population size of the > IAB/IESG is too small for a statistically valid comparison with either > the WG chair population or the IETF population. > > Of course, the nomcom doesn't select and the confirming bodies do not > confirm based on a roll of the dice. > But looking at this analysis, it's unclear - for this one axis of > gender - that the question "why the diversity of the IETF leadership > does not reflect the diversity of the set of IETF WG chairs" has a > more correct answer than "the luck of the draw". > > My base premise may be incorrect: That you need to have been a WG > chair prior to service as an IAB or IESG member. I hope it isn't as I > think this level of expertise is useful for success in these bodies. > > Assuming it is correct, then the next question is whether or not there > is a significant difference in percentage of female attendees vs > percentage of female working group chairs and is there a root cause > for that difference that the IETF can address in a useful manner. > > Mike >