On Nov 10, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I opted to sit the discussion out because I don't see a way > to move forward on improving policies while still respecting > the IETF consensus process - there's just too much disagreement > that there's a problem. I think that if you are going to talk about the consensus problem, then all you have to do is point to the lack of parity, which is visible at every IETF, and then someone who claims it isn't a problem is automatically in the rough. You don't get to choose your facts, at least not in the IETF, at least I hope. > I'd *love* to see a little more risk-taking > in the choice of working group chairs, and mentoring once we > bring on someone who's inexperienced and possibly somewhat > clueless. I don't think the performance of existing working group chairs is so stellar that we can claim that bringing on some newbies and providing them with proper support would be worse. It does depend on the newbie, but a realistic attitude toward the historic pool of working group chairs is warranted. I don't have a lot of experience with appointing working group chairs yet, but thus far when I have sought out working group chairs, the female candidates who seemed qualified have told me they don't have time, or aren't interested. I hope that doesn't continue to be the case, but if it does, it's not something I can do anything about. > Have apprentice working group chairs, if it comes > to that. Intellectual leadership comes from the set of > people who write influential drafts and the set of people who > write influential reviews, and perhaps there's some way we > can figure out to work with people to improve their drafts and/or > improve their reviews (I've been trying to do that a bit). Thanks for doing that. > I think there are a few things that can be done on an individual, > voluntary basis that won't require getting buy-in from people who > still regret women getting the vote. Obviously I don't have the same set of anecdotes you do, but I haven't seen this level of misogyny in the IETF. If it's happening, that's really disappointing. I tend to think a lot of resistance to action is more of the form of the naïveté that comes from privileged view, rather than active opposition. If that's not the case, I would like to hear more (privately, and preferably without names attached). > I don't know if the diversity group has opted not to work > on gender issues because it's just too contentious, because > regional issues are easier, because they're planning to work > on it later, because of lack of interest, ... but it's pretty > striking. I am really not convinced that the diversity group has opted not to work on gender issues. The lack of discussion on the mailing list doesn't seem to me to support that conclusion, since the design team is expected to be working in isolation until they feel they have a proposal they can present to the IETF. > Anyway, the greybeards photo *is* kind of funny (although it looks > pretty much like any night at the lodge here in Two Rivers, AK), > but there is this association between the word "greybeards" and the > notion of senior, wiser people who provide elder leadership, so maybe > it's kind of uncool to be dismissive of the rather obvious observation > that there were no women in the picture. A "Yeah, we realize that > but [ ... ]" would have done the trick. I was sorry to see that there were no women in the picture, but didn't say anything because I don't think the people who took the picture intended any harm. There is however an argument to be made that the use of the term "greybeards" should be deprecated, because I think it does send the wrong message. I don't mean people should be hassled if they say it—I just mean that it's worth considering whether when we as individuals say it, we are sending a message we don't intend.