Daniel,

I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible within the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did they get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to take part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so on. If  we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues they mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional insights. 

Just a thought. This is my first email to this list, I have no idea who has posting rights, so apologies if I am jumping in undeservedly. 

Farzaneh


On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:21 AM Daniel Karrenberg <chair@ripe-nomcom.org> wrote:


On 12 Dec 2019, at 11:28, Sasha Romijn wrote:

> Hello Daniel,
>> Of course it could have been more diverse if more people had offered
>> to serve…
>>
> I find this a rather strange comment. This sounds like a way of
> placing the responsibility for diversity in the NomCom, onto people
> from underrepresented groups in our community. This is a sentiment
> that I have seen before regarding the NomCom, from different people.
>
> Instead of placing that responsibility on those underrepresented
> groups, I wonder what work was done in advance to identify possible
> biases in the qualification process, what barriers may reduce
> diversity in the NomCom, and how these biases and barriers were
> accounted for in the policy?
>
> I’m aware it’s a bit late to change the policy. However, it is
> similarly a bit late to raise concerns about diversity only after the
> policy and call for volunteers is announced, and then the call does
> not result in a diverse group. Especially if the limited diversity is
> then explained as “if only more people had offered to serve”.
>
> Sasha


Sasha,

it is a very straightforward comment. My best estimate of the number of
eligible people is 380. As NomCom chair I made announcements, talked at
the community plenary and I canvassed. We made a lot of noise with the
help of the excellent NCC comms people. Quite a number of other people
helped with all that too. My hope was for roughly 25% of those eligible
volunteering. In the end less than 10% did. I had hoped for more
volunteers and for a more diverse set of volunteers; hence my comment.
It was certainly not my intention to blame anyone for anything, nor was
it my intention to raise concerns.

As you know the discussion about the process took several years. I am
happy it concluded eventually. A number of people worked quite hard to
make that happen. This process was as open, transparent and inclusive as
possible. The issue of NomCom eligibility was discussed several times.
Yet no-one made workable suggestions in that particular area when the
proposal was on the table for several months. In the end my perception
of the sentiment was “This is good enough for the first round. We’ll
be pragmatic if we hit snags and we will improve it for the next
round.” After this first run is complete, the NomCom will produce a
report listing issues and hopefully presenting alternatives to address
those.

Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees,
you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of
bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s
that?

Daniel