--On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 15:08 +0200 Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, > > I am not suggesting "diversity first" or above all. I didn't think you were. > Technical > qualifications and experience matter a lot. Also, diversity > means more than just national origin or skin color or > gender. It means diversity of experience, diversity of > opinion, and diversity of interest, alongside all that other > stuff. We have always been at risk of a monoculture forming > in our leadership ranks, and it has from time to time. Again, agreed. I have just seen too many situations in which, after a few iterations, general "diversity is important" statements and preferences like the one in your previous note morph into "diversity first" at the same time the criteria for diversity are narrowed into things that can be easily measured quantitatively. Geography, gender, age, differences in physical abilities, etc. (aka "that other stuff"), have that property, while the things you list above do not. In an industry in which many companies have complex alliances, hands-mostly-off subsidiaries, and co-ownership relationships and in which many consulting relationships come with non-disclosure requirements, even corporate affiliations can be hard to deduce with confidence, much less quantify beyond a primary organizational name. That perhaps natural human tendency (probably especially among people with engineering or scientific backgrounds) to reach for the easily-quantified in preference for hard-to-evaluate more subjective criteria has often, historically, interacted with "diversity is important" by narrowing "diversity" to those criteria that are easily measured and then promoting that more narrow definition of diversity over other, harder-to-measure, criteria into "diversity first". > It's up to the NOMCOM to keep that from happening. Yes. But it is up to us to avoid giving criteria to the NOMCOM that one or two passionate advocates either for narrowly-defined diversity or for giving easily-measured factors priority to get us into situations that neither of us would like. So, I think your proposed statement is in need for further explanation. I also agree with others that Brian's draft may not be the right place to put it. best, john
