From nobody Wed Sep 17 06:55:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608251A040E; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zrV9CMjCk5HD; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 223DF1A0110; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j107so1863995qga.18 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Z1w/ubN7NkP3sv3OkgSrGjngQDq2acA8/PrHFeI1tI8=; b=ypjQa2S4mTDBfGsuOrP4imeyOFyKqI18Pm7j01A3FLJ4Qp7zP4/Ij5nZBhYOfS+5bx vGwqIsOV4+5DPOIEwxdHL+L6gUF9NJ3CWOVhVVUtspcxJtz4sz8vkdBgi0j3p07womh9 Q+DHYscdX8SsSb4Ko1FBESYWHNNX547WrDXidOLYBrv7tQu8DWUwPNc1Ejq5/pRST/Ve FLzm07H4YvwP6iKPYha+OfE6dAPOOrgmCdgUrla2yvLWHxx/s2OrYReiIZ5xPA7MdIlW q9GAD+XZU6NvHaKkeHouAE4taXBwAD8PXAwN1AAZaWHr2rP6Ea36wcaOHEivNL6gtMXK pYQQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.67.73 with SMTP id i49mr50517977yhd.17.1410962130174; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.86.196 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <541765CC.80203@dougbarton.us> References: <20140913184700.D87EA1A0081@ietfa.amsl.com> <23509DBF-8596-4354-95CB-C2D14E360B75@piuha.net> <54175DF8.9060709@gmail.com> <54175E31.3000002@dcrocker.net> <541765CC.80203@dougbarton.us> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:55:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Doug Barton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011762418f8953050343380b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/udtzlEnz-VJECvW2dvbOvuY3JUs Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" , ietf Subject: Re: [Diversity] Substantial nomcom procedure updates (Was: Re: Consolidating BCP 10 (Operation of the NomCom)) X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Diversity open mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:55:33 -0000 --089e011762418f8953050343380b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Monday, September 15, 2014, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/15/14 2:56 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Dave Crocker > > wrote: >> >> On 9/15/2014 2:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > The worst case, which is not a fantasy, is that 5 large companies >> encourage >> > their staff to volunteer, so we end up with 5 pairs of large-company >> > staff and nobody from the rest of the community. > > That is bad selection output. > But (as Mike seems to >> > imply) if we put in rules to make this impossible, we'd be even >> further >> > from "each eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected." >> > So this does need clarity of intent, one way or the other. >> >> >> Make it max 1 per company. > > Max 1 per company per country. > >> >> Real and substantial diversity is essential. > > Agree > >> >> >> If we cannot get an adequate nomcom on that basis, we've got bigger >> problems and nomcom selection isn't the place to try to solve it. >> >> >> [MB] I totally agree with Dave. I think that also helps in that people >> that are from bigger companies often have the most people that are >> willing and more importantly able to fill the positions. Thus, this also >> reduces the potential appearance of bias in terms of voting members >> favoring nominees from their own companies. [/MB] >> > Yes > > Are y'all talking about the input to the nomcom process, or the output? It is process. But output should be determined by community. > I don't see anything wrong with more than one candidate per company > putting their name in the hat, but it's probably reasonable to limit the > number of qualified applicants that go into the final selection process. > > OTOH, how do you define "a company" in this scenario? Take any of the > large multinationals .... is it fair to eliminate a candidate because there > is another qualified candidate who happens to work at the same "company," > even though they are in different business units, different states, > different countries, or even different continents? Only different country is reasonable to have more with same company. We need more of countries people involved in the process. That is diversity in country but not company. However, there should be metric for diversity measure to select output with more diversity quality per person. > > I totally agree with the need to avoid capture of the IETF leadership, but > the problem is a lot harder to solve than you might think. It may be > worthwhile for our folks who are interested in this topic to have a chat > with the ICANN folks about policies and methodology that are in place > there, as avoiding industry capture has been an important part of their > working process since day 1, and a lot of thought has gone into it. Do you have a reference that we can check with? AB --089e011762418f8953050343380b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, September 15, 2014, Doug Barton wrote:
On 9/15/14 2:56 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:


On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 9/15/2014 2:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > The worst case, which is not a fantasy, is that 5 large = companies encourage
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > their staff to volunteer, so we end up with 5 pairs of l= arge-company
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > staff and nobody from the rest of the community.=C2=A0
That is bad selection output.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
But (as Mike seem= s to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > imply) if we put in rules to make this impossible, we= 9;d be even further
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > from "each eligible volunteer is equally likely to = be selected."
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > So this does need clarity of intent, one way or the othe= r.


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Make it max 1 per company.

=
Max 1 per company per country.=C2=A0

=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Real and substantial diversity is essential.

Agree=C2=A0
=C2=A0



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 If we cannot get an adequate nomcom on that basis, we've = got bigger
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 problems and nomcom selection isn't the place to try to s= olve it.


[MB] I totally agree with Dave.=C2=A0 I think that also helps in that peopl= e
that are from bigger companies often have the most people that are
willing and more importantly able to fill the positions. Thus, this also reduces the potential appearance of bias in terms of voting members
favoring nominees from their own companies. [/MB]

=C2=A0Yes
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

Are y'all talking about the input to the nomcom process, or the output?=

It is process. But output should be determined by community.=C2=A0
<= div>=C2=A0
=C2=A0I don't see anythi= ng wrong with more than one candidate per company putting their name in the= hat, but it's probably reasonable to limit the number of qualified app= licants that go into the final selection process.

OTOH, how do you define "a company" in this scenario? Take any of= the large multinationals .... is it fair to eliminate a candidate because = there is another qualified candidate who happens to work at the same "= company," even though they are in different business units, different = states, different countries, or even different continents?

Only different country is reasonable to have more with same= company. We need more of=C2=A0countries people=C2=A0involved in the proces= s. That is diversity in country but not company. However, there should be m= etric for diversity measure to select output with=C2=A0more diversity quali= ty=C2=A0per person.=C2=A0
=C2=A0

I totally agree with the need to avoid capture of the IETF leadership, but = the problem is a lot harder to solve than you might think. It may be worthw= hile for our folks who are interested in this topic to have a chat with the= ICANN folks about policies and methodology that are in place there, as avo= iding industry capture has been an important part of their working process = since day 1, and a lot of thought has gone into it.

=C2=A0Do you have a reference that we can check with?
AB
--089e011762418f8953050343380b--