Re: [Diversity] IETF Diversity Update

Hi Kathleen,

Your suggestion is important but I think the most important issue is that
the new participant is engaged into the WG to do any help. S/he may  not
like to be secretary but best is to be engaged into WG with what he or she
likes to do. Ietf will benefit when all are happy to work.

AB

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just one question inline to get your thoughts.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> On 12/14/2015 11:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There is a bias in the nomination process as it is based on the
> >>>> economic ability of a participant to attend meetings.  Does that
> >>>> have an effect the IESG selection?  I don't know.
> >>>
> >>> Right. There is some bias on economic ability and cycles
> >>> availability to both participate in general and being a leadership
> >>> member.
> >>
> >> My question would be: why a person that attends X meetings (but e.g. has
> >> not got involved in the standards process, other than by *attending* the
> >> meetings) is supposed to be more qualified as an AD candidate than
> >> someone that, e.g., has written 5 RFCs in the last couple of years or
> >> that has reviewed 10+ documents in the last couple of years?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that this is a bit more than just "some" bias.
> >
> > To be fair, there isn't a great way to measure contributions (number
> > of RFCs, number of drafts, number of reviews) that can be universally
> > agreed as each of these can be gamed (except RFCs to some extent).
> > However the number of meetings is a below average metric to measure
> > contribution. Perhaps some kind of score can be used with a threshold.
> > another way is to check the number of citations of the RFCs and drafts
> > (similar to the h-index in Jari's Authorstats tool)
> >
> >>> I’m open to suggestions, but there are funding agencies that are
> >>> specially focused on networking research, and leveraging them has
> >>> proven useful. For instance, EU research programs have often included
> >>> standardisation work, incl. IETF participation. I don’t know how to
> >>> replicate that more globally. Ideas?
> >>
> >> FWIW, that doesn't replicate at all in developing countries.
> >
> > +1 Funding is an issue in developing countries so is awareness where
> > funding is available.
> >
> >>> You have a point there. I agree that participation in the IETF should
> >>> not require extremely long term commitment. While very nice when that
> >>> happens, I’d like to see a situation where people are who experts in
> >>> Internet technical matters can easily join an IETF activity and get
> >>> going, at any level they desire and are suitable for.
> >>>
> >>> But again, I don’t have many ideas on how to change this, and I’m
> >>> open to suggestions…
> >>
> >> Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced
> >> chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs
> >> becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them.
> >>
> >> That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a
> >> result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs.
> >>
> >> And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different
> >> chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all
> folks.
> >
> > I have a couple of gripes against
> > 1. Lack of continuity for the WGs as and when the WG chairs change.
> > Also different WGs might take different calls which might lead to
> > conflicts (for example for adoptions of drafts)
>
> What do you think about having more WG secretaries as a training option
> before becoming a chair?
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
> >
> > 2. It is possible that People may not be motivated enough if there are
> > fixed tenures for WGs. Lots of people (WG Chairs) would take pride if
> > the WG does great work. When it s ahred amongst lots of people
> > Especially for long lived groups that might no longer be the case.
> >
> > Also getting qualified candidates might be an issue where the problem
> > space is more niche.
> >
> > -- Vinayak
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > diversity mailing list
> > diversity@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>