Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 19 00:53:03 EDT 2013
On Thu, April 18, 2013 6:44 pm, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 08:17:21AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
>> So a problem statement has been made: there is a notable lack of
>> diversity in the areas of race and gender. Why is this a problem?
>
> Because some people report that they
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 08:17:21AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
> white and male. The fallacy works like this:
>
> "If there was bias in favor of white males then we would have a
> leadership that is predominantly white and male. We have a
> leadership that is predominantly white and ma
On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Dan Harkins" wrote:
> Actually I think it would be better to explicitly state what is intended
> to be done.
This is what we are trying to figure out!
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> On Thu, April 18, 2013 3:24 pm, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > So, do we need to start this entire conversation over, overtly stating
> > that we are not interested in looking at *intentional* gender (or
> > corporate affiliation or other sorts of) bias?
>
On Thu, April 18, 2013 3:24 pm, Pete Resnick wrote:
> So, do we need to start this entire conversation over, overtly stating
> that we are not interested in looking at *intentional* gender (or
> corporate affiliation or other sorts of) bias?
Actually I think it would be better to explicitly sta
Damn. Breaking my two message rule.
On 4/18/13 4:47 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Now we're playing a subtle word game here. A bias that a statistician
might add is demonstrably different than what Melinda Shore has
_repeatedly_ referred to as "gender bias". So when I'm talking about
bias I'm talki
On Thu, April 18, 2013 1:51 pm, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/17/13 2:21 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>> Look, bias stinks and when it exists its stench is detectable.
>
> Dan, leaving aside all of your other comments for the moment (many of
> which are straw men that nobody but you have suggested, speakin
Johannes Merkle wrote:
>
>> Limitations
>>
>> - Works only if attacker fraudulently issued a certificate with a serial
>> that is not associated with a good certificate.
>
> This can be remedied by using an extension in which a server providing
> white-list information conveys a hash of t
On 4/17/13 2:21 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Look, bias stinks and when it exists its stench is detectable.
Dan, leaving aside all of your other comments for the moment (many of
which are straw men that nobody but you have suggested, speaking of
fallacies), this one comment is a serious problem sin
Pete:
> Your "eyeballing" had you put the ratio at about (snip)
FWIW, I took a database of first names, added a little piece of code on my
document statistics page to guess genders to calculate aggregate numbers. I get
results such as 13% of recent RFCs having female authors. Perhaps inline wit
On Apr 18, 2013, at 2:33 PM, James Polk wrote:
> I believe I did myself a disservice in assigning such a high ratio without
> saying it "feels like 70:1", which it does. But I'd truly be surprised if
> it's only 10:1 - and you can't make effective and accurate estimates based on
> guessing the
On Apr 18, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> What is this "cure" of which you speak? This diversity discussion has
> included statements like:
Personally, not wearing an AD hat or attempting to anticipate the conclusions
of the study group, I think the cure is to encourage more talented pe
At 10:28 AM 4/18/2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
I noticed this post from a few days ago, but I think instructive to
talk about. And this is not picking on James; I think it's likely
that there are many folk who have similar perceptions, and I think
it's useful to think about.
On 4/12/13 3:37 PM, J
The perception is important.
It probably shows many things including "attendance is not participation".
Just for the completely unscientific hell of it, I just counted up the mic-sex
in CCAMP's marathon meetings in Orlando. I counted minuted interventions and
presentations. I counted each interven
Dan: the original reason for wanting to understand who the meeting participants
are (as a subset of all IETF participants) was a desire to track our
participation. Similarly to how we already track where they come from, and
present that pie chart in the plenary.
You raise an issue about making
At 11:43 AM 4/18/2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Indeed. Ideally, though, we need a statistician to look at the
>historical ratios (e.g. M/F ratios) in the attendee lists vs the
>I* membership, to see whether there is a statistically significant
>bias in the selection process over the years.
>
>
On Thu, April 18, 2013 8:34 am, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2013, at 17:17, "Dan Harkins" wrote:
>
>> Why is this a problem?
>
> I think you are more likely to ask this question if you think that if it
> is a "problem", then we *have* to "solve" it, e.g. by shooting enough of
> the white
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dan,
>
> On 4/16/13 2:00 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
>> Under the belief of "garbage in, garbage out", I tend to lie on these
>> sorts of repugnant questions. I invite others to join me. The more
>> suspect the quality of the data, the less value i
Age, IQ, & shoe size? (Ideally, they should be equal.)
Irrespectively Yours,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Eliot Lear
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:01 AM
> To: Dan Harkins
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IE
Self inflicted confusion. Please see below:
On 4/18/13 5:17 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
>
> On Wed, April 17, 2013 12:48 pm, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Pardon me, but that makes no sense. Asking about the gender make-up of
> those who elect to register for a future meeting is going to tell us
>
On 18/04/2013 16:28, Pete Resnick wrote:
...
> That's a factor of between 4 and 7 difference between an "eyeball" guess
> and a rough calculation. I think that's likely an unintentional sampling
> bias of your (and many other folks) eyeballs. And I think it's because
> we have a tendency to subcons
On Apr 18, 2013, at 17:17, "Dan Harkins" wrote:
> Why is this a problem?
I think you are more likely to ask this question if you think that if it is a
"problem", then we *have* to "solve" it, e.g. by shooting enough of the white
male people in the IETF that the numbers balance.
It is not that
I noticed this post from a few days ago, but I think instructive to talk
about. And this is not picking on James; I think it's likely that there
are many folk who have similar perceptions, and I think it's useful to
think about.
On 4/12/13 3:37 PM, James Polk wrote:
Eyeballing the IETF (and I
Hi Eliot,
On Wed, April 17, 2013 12:48 pm, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dan,
>
> On 4/17/13 9:21 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>> We already know "who we are".
>
> I disagree. We make a whole lot of assumptions about who we are, but we
> don't actually know, and that's why the question is being asked. I
>
On Apr 18, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> but you can become "prominent" in the sense that people might say "this
> document hasn't had enough review. Let's ask so-and-so to read it"
Yes, it's worth noting that working group chairs are often desperate for people
about whom they can say thi
Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has
several co-authors that I recognize as current "goers". You also have a current
draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea whether they're "goers" or
not. Anyway, you are not a hermit. Through the RFCs and drafts tha
I've written RFCs without attending meetings; easy to do if the work is a
aligned with a workgroup.
That's fine if you're happy to be a technical resource with skills to be drawn
upon for problems set by others.
However, if you're sufficiently technical that you can set new technical
direction
Not entirely true.
It is true that getting "management positions" (chairs, AD, NomCom) requires
meeting attendance. But a non-attender can get recognition for quality
technical points, and can even progress technical work. RFC 4478 was published
long before I attended my first meeting. My own w
Not sure about the recognition for technical work.
To progress technical work, you have to go to meetings. To progress in the IETF
(chair, AD, IESG) you have to go to meetings.
Keep turning up and don't be too obviously completely abysmal technically, and
you can get a status dot on your badge
30 matches
Mail list logo
