Re: [Eligibility-discuss] [Gendispatch] New Version Notification for draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation-00.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I feel like the problem that you aren't representing here that I think is
quite important, Mike, is that most of us live in societies that clearly
bias in favor of men being in positions that allow them to travel to the
IETF. And I think we've seen that the IETF is also a fairly unwelcoming
environment for people who are not willing to handle disrespect by
responding in kind. (In cast it's not clear, I DO NOT mean you here—I'm
just saying this about the social structure we dwell in generally). And
women are generally, in our societies, socialized to accept disrespect
without responding in kind. They are generally seen in a poorer light than
men if they do respond in kind. They generally experience negative
consequences most men are not familiar with if they respond in kind.
Indeed, they also often experience these consequences merely by
disagreeing, even when they do so politely and constructively.

As a result of this, it is pretty much inevitable, particularly to the
extent that we measure IETF participation on the basis of who shows up and
who talks the most on mailing lists, that women are going to be
underrepresented in the IETF, and consequently on nomcom.

For what it's worth, I don't really like the notion of a "non-male
community." I feel like this draws a line that doesn't exist. Women are
members of our community: they are just treated differently, and because of
that fewer of them participate in ways that make them eligible for nomcom.

So the question is not how we address the needs of the "non-male
community," but how we do a better job of including those members of our
community who are not currently being fairly and effectively included.

I don't actually know how to do that. I'm not convinced that Mallory's
proposal is the best approach. However, I don't have a better suggestion,
and none of the suggestions you've offered feel to me like they are better
suggestions.

In an ideal world, I would much rather make the changes that we need to
make so that we have appropriate proportional representation of women and
men in our community, which I think is roughly 51-49 based on my limited
demographic knowledge. I think the fact that we could implement Mallory's
proposal now is actually evidence that we've made some progress in that
direction. But this feels very much like a chicken-and-egg problem. I don't
know how to get men in our community to be more respectful and welcoming of
women. Even if we were (and I think the majority of us are!), I don't know
what we can do about the problem of representation that isn't directly our
fault, but is simply the emergent property of our societies' biases, over
which we have very limited agency.

So having said that, it feels to me like what Mallory has proposed is
something that's actually within our power, and does address a real
problem. And so maybe until we can identify an approach that we can agree
is better, this proposal is a reasonable place to start.


On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 12:42 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I'm going to reset this slightly and offer a heretical comment.
>
> The lack of a particular community participating on a given nomcom is NOT
> a problem, well-known or otherwise.  It's one fact from a fair random
> selection.
>
> Instead, "The Nomcom candidate selections under-represent a given
> community over many Nomcoms."  would be a problem if the statistics showed
> that.  Is that the actual problem we should be addressing?
>
> Is the following a more accurate statement of the perceived problem?
>
> If Mallory's document said "We have this problem of under-representation
> in the IETF leadership.  Under-representation in the proposed candidates is
> measurably increased in the years where the voting members of the Nomcom do
> not include a member from that community and here's the statistics to show
> that case.  If we imposed a requirement to require at least one of those
> community members on each Nomcom statistics show this would help to resolve
> the under-representation of that community within the output selections."
> I would probably be more accepting of Mallory's proposed solution in that
> case.
>
> Unfortunately the current document doesn't say that, and I can't actually
> figure out what the problem being addressed actually is.  It can't be that
> losing a lottery is the actual problem.
>
> I might still argue against the simplistic approach proposed to solving
> the under-representation problem.  I would suggest that instead the
> liaison/advisor approach coupled with greater oversight by the confirming
> bodies and a willingness by them to require the Nomcom to reconsider
> selections as a means of achieving appropriate levels of representation
> might address an under-representation problem.
>
> We address the input conditions to affect the output conditions.  If
> adjusting the input condition results in no difference to the output
> conditions, why are we twiddling?  If adjusting the input conditions does
> affect the output - show me the math.
>
> A few other questions before I end - related to the proposal on the table
> and that will need to be addressed without hand waving:
>
> 1) Does the mandatory requirement apply if the volunteer pool
> participation for a community falls below 10%?  5%?  3%?  Or goes above
> 20%? 30%?
>
> 2) What is the criteria for selecting other communities for similar
> treatment?
>
> 3) Are claims of community membership subject to challenge (similar to
> claims of organizational association)?
>
> 4) What happens if the sole selected community member needs to be
> replaced?  Consider both the before the Nomcom convenes and after?
>
> 5) Is there a sunset clause?  If so, how is it triggered?  If not, why not?
>
> Lastly - the more general algorithm that would probably work without
> collapse is to select the special community members at the beginning of the
> process applying all of the rest of the rules for the remaining batch of
> selections.
>
> And to capture the possibilities:
>
> Possible changes to the Nomcom process (zero or more of these):
>
> 1) Impose a requirement to select at least one member from the non-male
> community to serve on the Nomcom.
>
> 1a) .... at least 2 members...  [[generally to address a past issue which
> has resulted in knock on present issues, you over represent the affected
> community for a period of time]]
>
> 2) Increase the number of voting members from 10 to 15 or 16.  At 16, with
> 10% of the pool, a community has a 4 in 5 chance of at least 1 member, a 1
> in 2 chance of at least 2.
>
> 3) Provide a non-male liaison/advisor either for every Nomcom or for any
> Nomcom without a non-male voting member.
>
> 4) Have a mandatory 1/2 briefing for the Nomcom on diversity issues prior
> to their first deliberation?
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>