On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spen...@wonderhamster.org>wrote:
> Hi, SM, > > This may be a misprint ... > > On 4/11/2013 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:43 PM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote: >> >>> 12.5 % of IAOC voting members are female. >>> 0.1% of IAB members are female >>> 0 % of IESG members are female. >>> >>> Based on the above measurements the IAOC is more "diverse". The IAOC >>> already collects gender-related information. The other information >>> requested in the meeting registration form is strictly for meeting >>> attendance purposes. The sensitive questions referred to above have >>> nothing to do with meeting attendance. >>> >> >> With respect, this is sampling noise. 12.5% of 8 is 1. Don't get me >> wrong—it's great that we have some diversity on the IAOC, but I don't think >> anybody should be patting themselves on the back just yet! >> >> What diversity is the IAOC measuring? >> > > By my count, the current IAB membership is 15 (12 Nomcom-selected, plus > the IETF chair, plus the ExecDir, plus the IRTF Chair - these last two are > ex-officio and non-voting). > > If the IAB means "members", the number for females, as far as I know(*), > is 2/15, or 13 percent. If it means voting members, the number for females > is 1/13, or just under 8 percent. > > Other diversities also matter, and I'm just doing math here (**). > Agreed, however, it would seem to me that at least one question that one might as is whether these percentages are representative of the IETF population at large. --dmm > > Spencer > > (*) In my spare time, I'm co-president of PFLAG Dallas, which is a local > chapter of PFLAG, an abbreviated abbreviation of "Parents, Families and > Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual _and Transgender_ people", so I know I > can't claim definitive knowledge on who's what ... only on what people > appear to be. > > (**) I think diversity matters, and didn't want us to look less > gender-diverse than we are ... >
