Re: [Cfrg] CFRG diversity (was: CFRG Review Panel)

"Paterson, Kenny" <> Sat, 15 October 2016 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD781296D4 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XgSQM6ZRb9b9 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67AE81296D3 for <>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-rhul-ac-uk; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=qD89eeOdQxe/JCdAmQ8A9B7uMznjB2bbi8LICvEDe+Y=; b=lhIkaUa8dVgr7kQ33x9HZJ4Xi9fViabZjRVNA0T118k/kH+bmeF5DKCUYhlhvhpfGXffLXHWeUCY9WmG47AEwWBoR2H6S8FrbWqsnk/29YV3wKhHOtiEf2sHdpGcWDegnl4mxedhl79g1nE6DSG9zHTSeRqWwdd9ln26p67rCu0=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.669.16; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:54:37 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0649.027; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:54:38 +0000
From: "Paterson, Kenny" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: CFRG diversity (was: CFRG Review Panel)
Thread-Index: AQHSJsojQO4VrE2D00OWy7Ue4TqleQ==
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:54:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 56542ff4-d8ab-4118-556e-08d3f4e146b0
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0302MB2748; 6:3J9zftP7t6pQCKk2W/onDImWCRD+Jznr3S4vaEZrXKWu+F0XxVT3BrspJT/p9iQeTKrFYBNdn5nvxsFRPrftp4dZR7PEKg3V4VhtkaB0jka1MOIqHvZbzSz4MpHKFxowrsAy1bUnPNCosmaz/D1YQ69WkWSOzbxSQfHd5QAT8iCzqkUdx2WXRm7jMK/GaSowYjtc35JIbmgyzCousOwy4bAu6sG7k6rijnuHIZ88YLxraYa7I2Xsp7dgTmu3c1OxtzEemRNaI+Ea4oqYa1SOMl9WaDXO3q4fbkYI+NHGiRlwT25XRf2Y7ynKph4TN9uY; 5:/x8FNNehj8N53c5UO241p4F6gNxCd29yMxWOar75UJz+b0ZLYpl9jqe8zmurd9vUUgyieOBYTSW4yfu6U0ROIZLOro0vS8tZViFh+/lNkwZZT20BQO/MmCU8/nr0l50vJbw/3MsuLcc0xPgpH9LUUw==; 24:/3hpJtV14RqHafqjhJZLyotCA/2cAhWT0hBqa5WVa5icvq1AhrtzEufTvQf7A3A4n8mumbqwOTNpJAF15ujPWnRlu+e91lDDu263jJ2h/kM=; 7:gJXmh5j/pLZ2ZMx842apN71yejVlhSIv1OfXKA0/bpoaLCpXZzYyyzADG0zWTbHj7f3ixfTc4BeHJICRQOEo7Lwt7YPOB+VZ+9b8931s3048jQ74q3+PP1SAqr4ktlm6quwzE0ryCHFBff4elEfltFo+8anPjFwkjQw6HIytDltDLfLZ97HkzzZvdhtyhRhrkTT76GeiL3gRijtibODr76VqgJD0gsenByBuK1qzVwZircj6V2Yht6/umXB4fCMtw2zDhcUaW+YaNlxoywlnFGlrjtePrxMjp6XG7pP3Wxda/Py5J9oZBh/CiQEpMXdTXuX83xAGNQq81LcQEw4SQFZhq4Cr+dGWQwAp/jlSe34=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:HE1PR0302MB2748;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(127643986962959);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:HE1PR0302MB2748; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR0302MB2748;
x-forefront-prvs: 00963989E5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(51444003)(24454002)(83506001)(105586002)(15975445007)(77096005)(305945005)(36756003)(450100001)(10400500002)(15395725005)(1730700003)(106116001)(81166006)(106356001)(74482002)(86362001)(122556002)(81156014)(50986999)(54356999)(8676002)(19580395003)(2906002)(101416001)(66066001)(3280700002)(2351001)(19580405001)(5002640100001)(4001350100001)(68736007)(92566002)(8936002)(3660700001)(42882006)(5660300001)(110136003)(87936001)(68196006)(2501003)(6916009)(2900100001)(6116002)(7736002)(102836003)(107886002)(3846002)(5640700001)(97736004)(189998001)(7846002)(586003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0302MB2748;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Oct 2016 09:54:37.8070 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2efd699a-1922-4e69-b601-108008d28a2e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0302MB2748
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] CFRG diversity (was: CFRG Review Panel)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 09:54:45 -0000

Dear All,

This thread raises the very real issue of (the lack of) diversity in CFRG,
and not restricted only to gender diversity. The issues are of course not
limited to CFRG, but apply to the whole of IRTF and IETF, and the tech
sector generally.  

To be clear: we did not receive any non-male self-nominations for the CRG
review panel. We did receive one female nomination from a third party, but
we did not pursue it since we felt we had enough self-nominations flowing
in at that point. 

However, I think it's pretty well understood by now that in this kind of
process, non-males are less likely to self-nominate than males are. Lest
this come across as lazy gender stereotyping, here is some evidence to
support my assertion (5 minutes spent on google; I hope other people who
know the research field better than me can point to other studies):

So, in retrospect, Alexey and I as co-chairs could have - and should have
- done more to encourage a wider diversity of applicants - both
self-nominated and not.

This instance raises broader questions about what we can do as a community
to bring about wider participation in CFRG. I think that a discussion of
this topic can be hosted on the CFRG list if people want to do so. If we
do, then we should keep the discussion to the usual high standards that we
aim for in CFRG.

I also note the existence of this low-volume list where such a discussion
might reach a wider audience of IETFers:



On 15/10/2016 01:27, "Kyle Rose" <> wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:04 PM, denis bider (Bitvise)
><> wrote:
>It is perverse to manufacture the appearance of a non-existent diversity
>by attempting to discriminate, at this very late point in the process,
>against men.
>Leaving aside the flamebait and politics...
>I would like to think (and I strongly suspect!) that the process for
>selection of this crew made no undue consideration for gender (or race,
>ethnicity, etc.), and that selection was entirely with regard to merit,
>within the constraint of self-selection. I don't
> think Rich was saying otherwise: I read his lament as one of
>disappointment at the outcome, not disappointment in the particular
>process. In other words: I think you read too much into it.
>Frankly, I agree with his oft-stated wider point that it's a
>disappointment that there aren't more women (or people of color, or ...)
>involved in IETF: in my case, not because I think there's a particular
>technical benefit to having gender or ethnic diversity,
> but because it's a sign of a wider social inequity that we, as leaders
>in a worldwide community, have a moral responsibility to help address.