On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Dan Harkins wrote:
> > On Thu, April 18, 2013 3:24 pm, Pete Resnick wrote: > > So, do we need to start this entire conversation over, overtly stating > > that we are not interested in looking at *intentional* gender (or > > corporate affiliation or other sorts of) bias? > > Actually I think it would be better to explicitly state what is intended > to be done. If you think that we are subconsciously influenced when > it comes to gender bias then I'd like to know what is going to be done > about it. And if it's more than "nothing" then I'd like to know what our > goal is vis-a-vis the gender breakdown of leadership positions and > the lengths that we will go to ensure we reach it. > > If we're just gathering data to make a pie chart for the plenary then > it seems like a waste of time. Without gathering a baseline, it makes no sense to postulate mitigations because there is no way to judge progress. Others have already noted that there are several different points of concern. By measurement, it may be possible to establish that IESG gender membership tracks general meeting attendance (or doesn't track meeting attendance). If it tracks meeting attendance it seems reasonable to finds ways to increase participation by the underrepresented population in the whole IETF. If it doesn't track the general population, then more detailed analysis is needed of the process of selecting IESG members. Collecting population characteristics is the first baby step.
