Subject: Re: IAOC -- looking for committee volunteers

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:12 +0200

I think it's great that we're drawing community members into the IAOC 
discussions.

One of the things that I find missing from this invitation is an 
indication of the level of commitment required to participate: how much 
time investment will be required? Does the position include travel; and, 
if so, is it mandatory? What I'm most worried about here is that people 
are going to have their own assumptions around these kind of 
requirements, which might discourage exactly those most capable of 
introducing diversity into the IAOC committees. (To draw a clear and 
straight line: the people who can comfortably assume that they can take 
on such load without worrying about resources are exactly the same kind 
of people who currently comprise the IAOC).

Also, while I understand that it's something of a dead horse, I think 
one of the things that the IETF 100 discussions threw into relief is 
that the existing committees are quite homogeneous: unless I'm mistaken, 
all nine Meetings Committee members are white males from the US or 
Western Europe. Adding community volunteers, if done right, may serve to 
increase diversity; however, by sheer numbers, adding one or two people 
to a group of nine will make, at best, a very small change to its 
composition. Has the IAOC considered perhaps replacing existing 
committee members rather than adding new members? It seems that this 
could broaden the impact of community involvement and strengthen the 
impact of improved diversity that may result.

/a

On 7/18/16 15:27, IAOC Chair wrote:
> The IAOC has a handful of committees to support its work [1].  The role of an IAOC Committee is to develop materials and make recommendations for IAOC decisions. Chair and membership in committees is constituted annually (typically at the IAOC meeting at the first IETF meeting of a calendar year, when IAOC membership terms come up).
>
> At this time, the IAOC is interested in broadening non-IAOC member participation in its committees, if there are one or 2 interested and suitable community members for each committee.   Note that all committees deal in business sensitive materials, and may require signing a non-disclosure agreement.
>
> Please see the charters of the individual committees for further detail [1].    Committees for which we are considering additional people are:
>
> 	. Finance Committee
> 	. Legal Committee
> 	. Meetings Committee
> 	. Technology Management Committee
> 	. RFP Committee
>
> We ask those interested to volunteer by sending a message stating their committee of interest and relevant experience for that committee to [email-masked], by August 1, 2016.  The IAOC will review candidates with the aim of appointing any new members by the end of August.
>
>
> Leslie, for the IAOC.
>
> [1] https://iaoc.ietf.org/committees.html
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:15:35 +0200

On 7/20/2016 1:52 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> time investment will be required? Does the position include travel;...

I'm one of the current Meetings Committee members.  Participation does 
not consume very much time and membership does not require a blood draw.

There is a telephone meeting for an hour, mostly once a month.  There 
are summary assessments of candidate venues to review and discuss and 
recommend, an casual review of various meeting statistics.  Occasionally 
a sticky subject pops up and needs deeper discussion.  So an average 
meeting is a mundane venue-selection discussion and only very 
occasionally a profound IETF existential discussion.

There is no travel associated with membership.  (Obviously there is an 
assumption of familiarity with IETF venue issues, but I've missed a 
number of recent meetings and while that meant I didn't have a 
first-hand 'feel' for specific issues discussed about the venues I did 
not visit, I don't think it's affected my ability to contribute.

>Adding community volunteers, if done right, may serve to
> composition.

In a group like this, a single voice is often able to be well-heard.

To the extent that the goal is some sort of 'complete' representation of 
the potentially-infinite range of diverse perspectives, obviously that's 
not possible, while still keeping it a manageable, small group.

My own view is that diversity in small groups is best served merely by 
making sure that various members really are different in almost any 
variety of interesting and meaningful ways.  For example, I think that's 
why the other members continue to put up with my own participation...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:41:36 +0200

On 7/20/16 14:15, Dave Crocker wrote:
> variety of interesting and meaningful ways.

It's not clear to me whether you're asserting that this is presently 
true on IAOC committees. Your example ("For example, I think that's why 
the other members continue to put up with my own participation...") 
implies on its face that you think it is, but I can't tell whether 
that's tongue-in-cheek or earnest.

/a

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:51:45 +0100

> I think it's great that we're drawing community members into the IAOC 

Fully agree.

> that the existing committees are quite homogeneous

FWIW, I agree that diversity in many dimensions ought be a factor
that whoever adds folks to these subcommittees.

S.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:02:07 +0200

In general I agree with Adam and Stephen.

In particular, it seems especially important that issues like venue
selection which implicate people's individual interests (travel, safety,
etc.) be made by a diverse group.

-Ekr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:33:56 +0200

On 7/20/2016 2:41 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> true on IAOC committees.

I meant it as a general rule.

   Your example ("For example, I think that's why
> that's tongue-in-cheek or earnest.

Sorry, that was a little bit flip.  I'm often expressing a minority 
perspective in the group, but not always without effect on the decisions...

The raw white/male and-mostly-American statistic is entirely accurate 
and it would certainly be a Good Thing for the group to obtain more 
diversity of membership.  Hence the solicitation.

d/
-- 

    Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:44:58 -0400

Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > indication
    > of the level of commitment required to participate: how much time
    > investment

I had the same quesiton.

I won't be at more than 2/3 in-person meetings on average, and going to a
retreat is probably off the table too.

On the other hand, having people remote would be a good thing.

    > existing committees are quite homogeneous: unless I'm mistaken, all nine
    > Meetings Committee members are white males from the US or Western

I'm white mail north american too.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-