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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mallory,
At 04:02 AM 21-11-2023, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>A short draft to consider in the selection of nomcom voting 
>volunteers to ensure minimum gender representation, available here 
>and copied below:

Thanks for submitting a draft on the topic of representation.  There 
isn't much information about gender representation.  I read a paper 
[1] written by Baron, Ganglmair, Persico, Simcoe and Tarantino.  One 
of the findings in the paper was that female representation in the 
Nomination Committee causes a decrease in female appointments before 
2012 and an increase thereafter.

There was a significant event around 2012 which might have influenced 
a shift.  There was also a letter [2] after 2012 which put the IESG, 
IAB, IAB and ISOC on notice.  The topic was forgotten when the crypto 
debacle occurred.

Brian argued that "Today, randomisation is the *main* guarantee of 
diversity in the NomCom" while Fernando argued that "Randomization 
won't help diversity well when you randomize from a non-diverse 
pool".  I took a look at the results of the Japanese Lotto [3].  The 
barrier of entry to the (nomination committee) pool was favorable to 
people who were affiliated with well-funded companies.  It reminded 
me of what is generally described as "algorithmic bias".

As noted in your draft, the only limitation in the selection process 
for the nomination committee is the "two vote" limit per 
company.  Have you considered a limit on gender over-representation 
instead of adding a new seat to the nomination committee?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Tarantino.pdf
2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ylAGDDpDDmcEyaNHpudF4Zqlqs4/
3. https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/ann/745189/