Le 2013-03-11 à 12:41, "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Spencer Dawkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 3/10/2013 5:22 AM, IETF Diversity wrote: >> >> I'm listed as a signatory and agree that this is important. >> >>> There are several steps that could be taken, in the short-term within >>> our existing BCPs, to address this problem: >>> >>> - Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the >>> IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a >>> public statement at the beginning of each year's nominations >>> process that they will not confirm a slate unless it >>> contributes to increased diversity within the IETF leadership, >>> or it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of what >>> steps were taken to select a more diverse slate and why it was >>> not possible to do so. >> >> I'd ask that people think about what the confirming bodies should be willing >> to say, along these lines. It seems a bit strong to me, but I'm not sure >> what the community is comfortable with. > > Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the above statement. Yes, diversity is a > good thing, and I'm all for it. However, I don't think it is a fundamental > goal; the fundamental goal is (as Jari said) to get the best people for the > job from the available talent pool. I don't know that political correctness > automatically helps there. > > For the noncom, if there is a choice between two people of equal capability, > diversity considerations can be useful in selection (pick the person who is > not a north american or european white male). But when it comes to > confirmation of a slate, the confirming body is not being asked whether there > are enough little green women, it's being asked whether the individuals > selected and the resulting committees (the IAB, the IESG, or whatever) will > be effective and competent in the role. A statement like "Send us more little > green women" from a confirming body to the noncom makes some important > assumptions: that there were little green women to choose from, that they > were equally or more competent than the person selected, and so on. The > confirming body is not privy to the discussions of the noncom, and isn't told > why a given individual was not selected, only the arguments for those > selected. That makes all such assumptions pretty dubious. > > I'd prefer that confirmation processes stick to fundamental goals, not > political correctness. If you want to encourage the noncom to consider > diversity in its deliberations, fine. But not the confirming bodies. agree completly. Confirming body does have (some) information of one candidate. Marc.
