Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 23/01/2021 12:05, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> I'm somewhat sympathetic to all the "we don't need to actually look into this", though I think our societal hangup about talking about personnel matters, with all the ineffable mysteries that then form around them, is pretty cowardly.
>
> But I'm not sympathic to complaining that the food is not to taste and then not looking into the ingredients that went into it.
>
> Motherhood and apple pie statements that "it's really disappointing we aren't getting more diverse" are quite poisonous when they just stand without introspection.  If an excess of straight white males applying for roles is the root problem, then Rich is as guilty as anybody for contributing to that problem, and it's pretty rich (pun not intended) to then complain about the outcome.
>
> If the problem is that the only candidates available where straight white males, then we can look at how to get other candidates into the pool.
>
> And - if the problem is that the nomcom selected without sufficient weight given to diversity, then considering a selection that would have made Rich appointed (that's the opposite of disappointed, right?) with the result is a reasonable request in response to Rich's stated disappointment.
>
> Throwing our hands up and saying "it involves people, we can't talk about it" is way problematic if we intend to do more than wring our hands and cast generic aspersions of systemic sexism and racism at the IETF.

The danger I see is the politics of woke impairing out ability to 
deliver the RFC.

I am concerned about diversity but that is diversity of organisations 
that the candidates work for, something that has long been recognised as 
an issue and that we have processes to deal with but which I think will 
come under greater stress in future NomComs.  There is already an 
element of judgement there as to what counts as the same organisation 
and that I think needs ever more careful attention.

We are technical, engineers, and so for me, the issues that woke raise 
are less relevant than in a body that serves the public.  Thus a recent 
report told me that in a city that is 40% black, only 10% of a public 
serving body were black and that I find concerning.  But in the IETF, it 
is technical ability that is of prime concern to me, the ability to 
produce, to review, to criticise a highly technical proposal and I think 
that that should trump the woke issues, of gender, colour, age and such 
like which are important in an organisation providing a service to the 
public at large.

Tom Petch

> Bron.
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021, at 18:21, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Saturday, January 23, 2021 19:18 +1300 Brian Carpenter
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. The problem here is not whether incumbents are
>>> re-appointed, but why the pool of candidates lacks diversity.
>>> This is not exactly a new problem.
>>
>> Well, I think we have three separate problems, none of which
>> require "I think Alice would be better than Betty" discussions...
>>
>> (1) How we handle incumbents who are willing to enlist for
>> additional terms without discouraging people from volunteering
>> to run against them.  See my previous note for a pointer to at
>> least one way to mitigate the problem.  There are probably
>> others, but the IESG was not interested in a discussion in 2009,
>> so the topic dropped.  Perhaps conditions for the discussion a
>> better today, perhaps not.
>>
>> (2) How we increase diversity in the IETF and, in particular,
>> among those who have whatever support is needed to stand for
>> leadership positions and become part of the candidate pool (and,
>> for that matter, part of the Nomcom volunteer pool and the WG
>> Chair volunteer pool).
>>
>> (3) What advice we would like to give future Nomcom about the
>> relative importance of diversity in particular bodies vis-a-vis
>> picking people based on other qualifications for the relevant
>> positions.  I am firmly convinced that more diverse
>> organizations (and especially decision-making bodies) function
>> better and produce better results.  I have also seen the IETF
>> make what I believe were poor technical decisions because
>> everyone involved was used to very high speed networks with
>> substantially unlimited capacity and the very latest and fastest
>> local computers and other local equipment, a problem with which
>> a different type of diversity would help too.  But, especially
>> on the IESG where AD positions require specific technical
>> expertise and understanding my suspicion is that any simple
>> answer to the question of how to balance those requirements
>> against diversity if there is a shortage of the combination in
>> the IETF is probably wrong.
>>
>> I do want to make a suggestion to complement Bron's.  Would it
>> be useful to create a repository for confidential comments to
>> the 2021-2022 Nomcom right now?  We could then encourage Rich
>> and anyone else who thinks the 2020-2021 Nomcom got some things
>> wrong and that we can do better to upload comments in as much
>> detail as they think appropriate now, while their thinking is
>> still fresh.  But we would treat that material as confidential
>> comments to the future Nomcom, using whatever degree of security
>> cleverness we think is needed to prevent anyone from reading the
>> comments until the new Nomcom Chair is appointed and the keys
>> turned over to them.
>>
>> best,
>>     john
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2021, 19:11 Loa Andersson, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bron,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with John, I think it is bac practice to discuss
>>>> names and selections.
>>> ...
>>
>>> On 23/01/2021 13:09, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say quite the opposite.  If he'd been selected and
>>>>> had to work with everyone else, then this would be an
>>>>> unfair question, but otherwise I think it's a vital
>>>>> question and deserves to be addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> We see many claims that it would be better to increase the
>>>>> diversity of representation among the leadership of people
>>>>> along certain of the axes along which humans differ, and
>>>>> Rich has specifically taken the time to decry a lack of
>>>>> said diversity in the current leadership (both concluding
>>>>> and incoming).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually particularly interested to see whether Rich
>>>>> suggests that he would have been the best choice for the
>>>>> role that he applied for, despite being white, male,
>>>>> cis-gendered and western.  Given those facts, I'm
>>>>> interested in how he squares the request for increased
>>>>> diversity with his candidacy, given that the diversity
>>>>> would by definition have to be created by picking
>>>>> non-{western white male}s for other roles in the leadership.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't divorce the abstract concerns from the concrete
>>>>> underlying constraints.  It's nice to have those concerns
>>>>> in the abstract, but "rough consensus and running code" -
>>>>> you can't have a rough consensus that "we get more type-X
>>>>> person into leadership" without running "we encourage
>>>>> type-X people to run and we choose them when they do".
>>>>>
>>>>> I observe a lot of "we should have more of people not like
>>>>> me in leadership, and yet I want to keep my place in
>>>>> leadership" in the world, and it's incongruent.  I don't
>>>>> think Rich's statement of a general goal can stand
>>>>> independent of there existing realistic pathways to achieve
>>>>> that goal, and hence I think it's fair to ask Rich what
>>>>> realistic pathway exists to have delivered a result that he
>>>>> would have been more satisfied with than this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bron.
>>
>>
>
> --
>    Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>    [e-mail]
>
>