Re: [Gendispatch] Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

--0000000000009bc8cf065735c2e5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 12:27=E2=80=AFPM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote=
:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 9:20=E2=80=AFAM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
>>
>>    - The result of this would be to make the selection process not
>>    publicly
>>    - verifiable.
>>
>>
>> I=E2=80=99m not so sure that this is true. To pick an obvious method, it=
 might
>> require public disclosure of the gender of those skipped over, to show t=
hat
>> you had to go to a different candidate.  Or we could decide to require t=
hat
>> being a NomCom volunteer might require disclosing your gender.
>>
>
> Yes, but these are both in contradiction with the paragraph directly abov=
e
> which
> requires them to be private.
>
>
I think that what could happen is the reasons for the skips are not
disclosed, corporate or otherwise. The section from RFC8713 says,

"The number of NomCom members with the same primary affiliation is limited
in order to avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing the
leadership of the IETF. *Rather than defining precise rules for how to
define "affiliation", the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity
of the participants to make the process work*."

Emphasis on this language is probably what we should copy wholesale for
this draft, too.

Now, if the reasons for the skips are not officially disclosed and just
presented without commentary I think this is probably good enough to not
have to gender every single IETFer and still provides verifiability for the
nomcom process.

-Mallory


>  There are probably many trade-offs we could consider. Or that the
>> previous NomCom chair also gets to know, and perhaps a designee of the I=
SOC
>> President.
>>
>
> And these are not publicly verifiable.
>
>
>
>> It=E2=80=99s about what set of trade-offs we want to make in pursuit of =
this
>> goal, if any.
>>
>
> Yes. What I am trying to say is that those tradeoffs need to be
> considered, and
> it's not just a simple extension of the existing two-per-company limit.
>
> -Ekr
>
>

--0000000000009bc8cf065735c2e5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_=
attr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 12:27=E2=80=AFPM Eric Rescorla &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r=
gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></d=
iv><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On =
Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 9:20=E2=80=AFAM Salz, Rich &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsalz=
@akamai.com" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">



<div>
<ul style=3D"direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">
<li style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;co=
lor:rgb(0,0,0);direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-style-ty=
pe:&quot;\0027a2  &quot;">
<div role=3D"presentation" style=3D"direction:ltr">The result of this would=
 be to make the selection process not publicly</div>
</li><li style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12=
pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-sty=
le-type:&quot;\0027a2  &quot;">
<div role=3D"presentation" style=3D"direction:ltr">verifiable.</div>
</li></ul>
<div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div><div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-se=
rif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
I=E2=80=99m not so sure that this is true. To pick an obvious method, it mi=
ght require public disclosure of the gender of those skipped over, to show =
that you had to go to a different candidate.=C2=A0 Or we could decide to re=
quire that being a NomCom volunteer might require
 disclosing your gender.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, b=
ut these are both in contradiction with=C2=A0the paragraph directly=C2=A0ab=
ove which</div><div>requires them to be private.</div><div><br></div></div>=
</div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>I think that what could happen =
is the reasons for the skips are not
 disclosed, corporate or otherwise. The section from RFC8713 says,</div><di=
v><br></div><div>&quot;The number of NomCom members with the
     same primary affiliation is limited in order to
     avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing
     the leadership of the IETF.  <b><u><i>Rather than defining
     precise rules for how to define &quot;affiliation&quot;, the
     IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of
     the participants to make the process work</i></u></b>.&quot;</div><div=
><br></div><div>Emphasis on this language is probably what we should copy w=
holesale for this draft, too.</div><div><br></div><div>Now,
 if the reasons for the skips are not officially disclosed and=C2=A0just=20
presented without commentary I think this is probably good enough to not
 have to gender every single IETFer and still provides verifiability for
 the nomcom process.</div><div><br></div><div>-Mallory</div>=C2=A0</div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e=
x"><div><div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-=
serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> =C2=A0There are probably many trade=
-offs we could consider. Or that the previous NomCom chair also gets to kno=
w, and perhaps a designee of the ISOC President.</div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>And these are not publicly verifiable.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><=
div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;fon=
t-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> It=E2=80=99s about what set of trade-offs we=
 want to make in pursuit of this goal, if
 any.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. What I am trying to =
say is that those tradeoffs need to be considered, and</div><div>it&#39;s n=
ot just a simple extension of the existing two-per-company limit.</div><div=
><br></div><div>-Ekr</div><div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000009bc8cf065735c2e5--