Rob, Speaking as one of those white, male, and arguably past middle-aged guys, I've taken the position for about the last decade that my own time was better spent in advising, coaching, and other support roles than in explicit leadership ones. I've taken on one WG Chair position during that period because it didn't look like there was any practical alternative but tried to see to it that younger people did most of the work and learned in the process (I'm not sure I succeeded, but I tried). And I encouraged the Nomcom to put me back on the IAB for one term because I thought my perspective would be useful but stepped down at the end of that term (I admit I'm considering whether to do that again). In that same period, I've helped a number of newcomers get initial drafts prepared and so on. I don't know if that is a good example or not. My personality does not make me an ideal candidate for the role I've tried to take on and, as members of the present and past EDU efforts can tell you, I've got strong opinions and can be annoying to work with. Each of the older and more experienced folks should make their own decisions about when or if to make similar transitions. At one time, I believed that everyone stepping off the IESG --voluntarily or not-- should devote themselves primarily to bringing others along rather than finding new places to "lead". Maybe I still do. I think that constitutes "working to hand off to younger people". But it covers something that I think your note misses. I've observed that one of the worst tendencies in industries related to the Internet is putting people in new positions or promoting them with lines that amount to "congratulations, you are now an X", where "X" might be "manager", "designer", "expert in some previously unknown field", etc. In general, if one takes a WG and says (this is probably more extreme than you intended) "no one gets to participate in this if they have been around the IETF more than ten years or can remember when the first packets moved over the ARPANET", that is likely to be a recipe for failure. Yes, some people might rise to the job, but I think we can do better by recognizing that, for example, good WG Chairs grow out of learning, experience, and lots of support and not an hour course or being congratulated by an AD.. usually even if the prospective Chairs think they are ready. It seems to me that we need at least two things. One is a supply of incoming younger people, ideally a diverse one. We need to get better at finding them and bringing them in and also at not scaring or driving them off. The other is a plan about getting support for those who show even minimal potential that moves well beyond a few hours during the week of IETF and that may need to be proactive rather than waiting for the newcomers to ask for help. I think the more senior people can help with those things by volunteering for those more education and supportive roles, acting as advisors and, if necessary, co-chairs for younger people and first-time WG chairs, and generally not being in the way. I don't think that is quite enough of a plan. best, john --On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 17:35 -0700 Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed there were some parts of the last IETF meeting (105) > that were sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those > meetings tended to be white, mostly male, and at least > middle-aged. There's nothing wrong with that: no one chooses > their age, gender, or skin color. > > Although there is value in experience, maybe the IETF should > work to hand off some duties to more diverse younger people. > > As a start, I propose identifying some current groups that > could be better-handled by younger and more diverse people. > The one I have in mind is CAPPORT, but I'm not tied to it. > > thanks, > Rob
