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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 26 January 2021 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C553A0E25 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:11:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PeI6QNu1G89a for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BBC13A0E22 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4645284685; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:11:39 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: How to get diversity of nominees was Re: Diversity of candidates was Re: NomCom 2020 Announcement of Selections
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR02MB69249C1C01C2D89BE57184D1C3BC9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <fb5feb53-916b-e001-057d-f0853e3ff370@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:11:29 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR02MB69249C1C01C2D89BE57184D1C3BC9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/e-wd5GUFv-bulJpK8L_rITaGNOk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:11:54 -0000

On 26/1/21 15:26, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> Since this conversation is happening, and I had a first row seat to all things NomCom this past year ...
> 
> I don't think the pool of nominee diversity reflected the diversity of the set of people who regularly attend meetings. In my NomCom Chair report at IETF 109, I specifically highlighted the big difference in "time zone" / geographic diversity that was made obvious to me by the time zone info Calendly gave me when nominees scheduled their interviews vs. available statistics regarding current-address-continent of meeting attendees.
> 
> 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. It may be useful to focus on how to increase WG Chair diversity. 

e.g.: Have two/three chairs per wg. On of them is a "junior chair" that 
is being introduce to the role. Eventually the junior chair becomes one 
of the experienced chairs, and you have an empty set for a junior chair 
again. Or when they junior chair has become experienced, he leaves, and 
a new junior chair takes the seat?




> 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?

FWIW, I proposed exactly that ~5 years ago, on the "difersity" list 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/p9-JnoVuuCgJdmn_hEtxgxdLpaE/):

---- cut here ----
Ones suggestion: Rotate chairs, as you rotate ADs. Have one experienced
chair, and say two fresh chairs. Eventually one of the "fresh" chairs
becomes the experienced one, and you keep refreshing them.

That way, each chair will have IETF management experience, and as a
result you get more possible candidates for running as ADs.

And obviously, don't just rotate the same set of folks over different
chairs. The goal should be to increase the opportunity window for all folks.
---- cut here ----

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492