[diversity] scope of effort?

shane> I do not think that a co-ordinated effort makes much sense. While
shane> there are similarities between various Internet-related groups,
shane> the communities are extremely varied in terms of who
shane> participates, the goals, the activities, and so on.

I'd agree that tightly coupling RIPE and other group efforts isn't the
best path. But I do think there are a lot of common areas and interests
where sharing widely will bemefit everyone.

shane> For most of the other organizations, there are people much better
shane> positioned to push efforts forward.

Also agree on this though I'd say that sharing names of interested
parties on all sides so we know who to share with would be handy. I'm
happy to be a conduit for DNS-OARC and NANOG.

shane> One thing that I am really unsure of right now is whether it
shane> makes sense to measure different organizations against each
shane> other.

I have mixed feelings on this. Different orgs will be at different
places on the path and will have different needs. Metrics should reflect
the goals of whoever is developing and using the metrics. Publishing
metrics would be good; using the same metrics everywhere probably isn't
useful.

I've been going through the various slides and papers referenced in the
RIPE blog article. I think one thing that everyone doing conferences
would benefit from is a wider diversity of speakers. But doing that
requires that we get folks who haven't necessarily been to RIPE.

There are a couple of folks collecting names of women available for
technical talks and that's one place to start. I'll see who has
something they are ready to share and post here.

One concern I have is that we not only actively reach out to speakers
beyond the usual suspects but how we'll make them comfortable. It's not
fun being the only <NON-MAJORITY> speaker on a panel or program. Do
folks here have concrete suggestions on how we can give potential
speakers that comfort and support?