[Chapter-delegates] more diversity, was On funding dedicated to chapters

[Tom Fredrik Blenning]

Den 06.10.2021 04:49, skrev John Levine via Chapter-delegates:
> It appears that Veni Markovski via Chapter-delegates <veni at veni.com> said:
>> We — well, I  — don’t complain from the IETF. As you said - it’s their	
>> issue, which from what we see they are either not willing, or not able to
>> solve. Or maybe they don’t see it as a problem, as the chapters do. If the
>> latter, that’s another problem, which perhaps ISOC could address in talking
>> to the IETF.
> 
> Why do you imagine that ISOC does not talk to the IETF?  I presume you
> are aware that the IAB appoints 1/3 of the board, and the current ISOC
> board chair is an active IETF participant and a former chair of the IAB.
> 
> But for the diversity advocates in the chapters, here is a question:
> 
> Let's say there are two open Chapter seats on the board, and the nominating
> committee offers candidates from south Asia, west Africa, and Latin America.
> Then there is a petition to nominate an old guy from the U.S.  Should the
> petition candidate be allowed to run, even though he would increase the
> number of of old guys from the U.S.?
> 
> Let's assume the petition candidate does run and gets more votes than
> anyone else. Should he be seated on the board, even though he would
> increase the number of old guys from the U.S.?
> 
> If the answer to those is yes, how do you plan to increase the board's
> diversity?  If the answer is no, how do you plan to explain to the
> chapters that they can't vote for their preferred candidate?

I find myself in a very peculiar position being labeled as a diversity 
advocate since in a lot of situation I would be arguing against 
affirmative measures. I would still argue against affirmative measures, 
and if the chapters, IETF, or whoever chooses to ignore the advice of a 
nominating committee then so be it.

What I do advocate for however is something that is simply good 
practice. For a board, one should identify what qualifications are 
necessary to fulfill and seek to find candidates that meets those 
requirements in a best possible manner.

For a trust that has a global reach, at least in my opinion, it should 
be rather uncontroversial that having a global perspective would be one 
of those qualifications.

One issue that stuck with me is the denial for funding cited by 
Alexander Blom in the thread on What should ISOCs future goals be - 
"while the application was extremely well written and thought out, the 
issue is very politically complicated and does not fit within the 
objectives of the program objectives and does not align with ISOC and 
Foundation’s goals". This seems to me to be extremely US centric. Anyone 
who is aware of the state of European politics, would recognize that 
there is a huge difference in the state of discussions on fake news in 
Europe vs. the US. The fake news debate in Europe is less politically 
sensitive and more of an open discussion on how to approach the subject. 
If ISOC is not to engage on these issues, we may as well recuse 
ourselves to become a talking club.

-Tom Fredrik