On Nov 10, 2013, at 5:22 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. > > That strikes me as the welcome mat in front of a rathole. How does > the gender balance in the IETF (or whatever subgroup of the IETF) > compare to the balance in the population from which the IETF or the > subgroup is drawn? What population is that, exactly? etc etc blah > blah If indeed the gender imbalance in the IETF is a symptom of a larger problem, which I agree is probably true, then we are still a part of that problem, and also potentially a part of the solution. We can lead, or we can follow (in whatever direction the rest of the world goes). > There are lots of reasons we don't see more women in the IETF. Some > are things we can fix ourselves, some are things we can't, but you'd > have to be wilfully blind not to see ways that the IETF can be > uncomfortable for women, particularly young women. _That_ sounds more like a welcome mat for a rathole to me, and I think it's one of the reasons why we picked a design team to look at this problem rather than continuing to discuss it on the IETF mailing list. If you have input to offer them, I think you know how to be in touch. :)