Re: How to get diversity of nominees was Re: Diversity of candidates was Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections

Joel Halpern <> Tue, 26 January 2021 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7598E3A10DF for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:53:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 2_uNycHx8N4t for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:53:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D49B3A10BA for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DQL8h1BF9z6GF0S for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:53:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1611698020; bh=Hn0Eu8HSs/AxdcUBGqXPkSFfVaW3optRFgxyS7AOi8c=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MPE/5hVO10DURrgUPf417BDMCLOK8lBromXPDzZVN1bIpuIJhHp7guATfBt3204KV G8xd2iXeipdtEnwdVInHD9WRQ68KVhkH2dQXCqdIbS7PbbGJmg1sWKRIwC3CITza4u tHJdfzzM6RBt+TBWum5/sXt7Y/fTjnH0rntxN/jY=
X-Quarantine-ID: <iMzXAoFdLObW>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DQL8g4m6zz6G8r1 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: How to get diversity of nominees was Re: Diversity of candidates was Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections
References: <> <>
From: Joel Halpern <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:53:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 21:53:50 -0000

There is one easy tool that I think we should use more in appointing WG 
ADs could publicly ask for volunteers.

I was very pleasantly surprised a number of years ago when I and another 
IAB member had to appoint a person to a position.  We knew who we 
wanted.  We decided we should put out a public call anyway.  And got a 
volunteer we had not thought of who was even better.


PS: As mentioned by others, I think the practice of pairing experienced 
chairs with new chairs is both a good idea and very effective.

On 1/26/2021 2:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 1/26/21 1:26 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> IIRC, all the nominees were WG Chairs. This is generally considered an 
>> intermediary step towards the NomCom-appointed leadership positions. I 
>> strongly suspect (but don't feel incented to get real statistics) that 
>> the nominee pool diversity reasonably resembled WG Chair diversity, 
>> but that WG Chair diversity does not reflect attendee diversity.
> If WG chairs tend to be people who have attended many in-person meetings 
> and/or have actively participated in IETF for a few years, I wonder how 
> much the diversity of WG chairs is affected by attendee churn which 
> seems to be larger today than in the past. It's hardly surprising if ADs 
> who appoint chairs want people experienced with IETF process (and 
> consensus-based decision making in particular, since we rely on chairs 
> to gauge consensus and sometimes to help build consensus within their 
> WGs).  It would also not be surprising if participants would like to 
> experience IETF before taking on the responsibility of chair.
> So one thing I'm curious about is: how does IETF encourage more 
> participants to be engaged in IETF in general, instead of only in the 
> context of specific WGs?
> Or to put it another way: how does IETF encourage more participation by 
> people with broad and/or long-term interests in the Internet?
> I wonder if the fee waivers can continue indefinitely even for in-person 
> attendance, or if there can be fee reductions for f2f meetings.   Even 
> if it's not feasible to reduce fees for everyone who cannot pay for 
> in-person meetings, perhaps there could be reductions in fees from 
> under-represented parts of the world? Perhaps other means of lowering 
> the cost of attendance can be found?
> Keith