[Chapter-delegates] On Board Diversity

[Ted Hardie]

I'm speaking on this topic as an individual, not on behalf of the board.

After reading a few of the ongoing threads, I wanted to point out that one
of the more unusual aspects of the Internet Society's board of trustees is
the rate at which membership can turn over. Our election processes put 4
seats up in any one year and impose a limit of two consecutive terms.  That
means that any diversity that is attained for the board is subject to
rebalance as soon as the following year, and it means that three different
groups are responsible for attaining or maintaining that diversity.  All
three groups essentially run open candidate  solicitations,  and then each
runs its own selection.  In none of the IETF cases that I was involved in
can I recall a balanced set of incoming candidates, whether measured by
gender or region.  In the other selection processes I've been involved in,
things were better, but there were often other differences among the
candidates that were equal in importance to regional and gender diversity.
  Put another way, the complexity of managing the diversity of experience
needed in a board is also significant, especially when the turnover can be
a third of the total board membership.

But I think the current system embodies something important:  the principle
that the constituents of the society select members of the board.  Once on
the board, each member is expected to represent the interests of the whole,
but each clearly has experience in one or more of the constituent bodies
which they bring to the table.  They are known to and voted in by the
chapters, the organizations, or the IETF's delegated body.

One concern I have is that efforts to create specific targets for the
board's diversity might end up limiting that principle.  If you assign the
task to the board to manage its own diversity, it more-or-less follows that
you either have to move the final selection to the board or you have to
ensure that the slates presented to the community remove specific
candidates from consideration to achieve the goals.  Both approaches limit
to a greater or lesser degree the freedom the constituents have to exercise
their votes.

Including this factor in the creation of the slates is already the case, as
you can see from reading past NomCom reports, but it is one among many
factors.  We can choose to make it a dispositive factor, and it might be
the right thing to do.  Doing so, however, requires a really clear
understanding of the other principles that achieving this will impact.

Again, just my personal thoughts,

regards,

Ted Hardie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20211007/644cb9c1/attachment.htm>