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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:49 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > IIRC, all the nominees were WG Chairs. This is generally considered
> an
>
> Thanks for highlighting this.
> It has been my petpeeve since 2003.
>
>     > Most organizations that have improved their diversity at various
>     > management layers have done so by instituting a policy that requires
>     > the "hiring boss" to interview a diverse candidate pool. In many
> cases,
>     > the organizations also had to implement policies that made it easy
> for
>     > people interested in a position to self-nominate (apply) for it,
> rather
>     > than allowing the "hiring boss" to choose the candidate(s) from among
>     > the people they like, hang out with, and are comfortable with (or
>     > recommendations from such people). I've noticed that WG Chair
> positions
>     > are rarely broadly advertised and that each AD seems to have their
> own
>     > method of figuring out who to interview for a Chair position. It
> might
>     > make it easier for ADs to interview a more representative (of regular
>     > attendees) set of people if available WG Chair positions were posted
>     > and people were allowed to ask to be interviewed (or nominated by a
>     > "friend") for the position.
>
> There are a couple of steps to being noticed such that you might be WG
> chair
> eligible.  They are:
>   1) being Document Shepherd.
>   2) WG Secretary.
>
> What I'd like to have is a list of people who would be willing to Document
> Shepherd.
> They need to care about the work (and understand any controversy in it), so
> it can't be just random, but at the same time, they can't be too
> intimately involved.
>
> This is where I'd put the self-nominate spot.
> I also agree that WG positions are not widely advertised.
>
>


>     > Another part of this, though, is the scarcity of open WG Chair
>     > positions. People mentioned that they don't want people hanging out
> in
>     > AD and IAB positions for many terms. But what about long-standing WGs
>     > where all the Chairs have been there for 10 or more years? Might it
> be
>     > useful to encourage a little more rotation of WG Chair positions?
>
> I strongly support this idea.
>


+1

Also, I think that WGs lasting 10+ years should be sanctioned, why do we
need them?

Behcet

> WG chairpersonship has become a bit of sinecure.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>