I think the same "outcome" message with a complimentary reasoning.

The common outcome is that collective diversity in a decision-making group
is valuable in and of itself, mainly because the differing backgrounds
provides a better chance to cover all the bases in evaluating policy.

Andrew's point is that the "global maximum" is not simply the "sum of the
individual maximums" -- the network interaction effects make a significant
difference in the value of the network, the whole is greater than the sum
of the parts.  The qualitative differences yield a quantitative
amplification not predicted by individual measures alone.

Avri adds that the measure of individual "talent" is itself culturally
subjective, and that one of the specific benefits of collective diversity
is the individual learning process that occurs with cross-cultural
contact.  This improves both the perception of others' individual talents,
and one's own objective individual talent, across the whole group.  The
implication is that a perception of lack of talent may often be an
illusion born of cultural myopia (and that the token may take precedence
where active inclusion in the process might "blossom" the existing
talent).

Dan



On Thu, January 31, 2013 4:30 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The issue I have with the Talent criteria is that I find that often people
> with one perspective, don't quite recognize the talent of another
> perspective until they have worked together for a while.  So the
> comparison can be difficult.
>
> So i guess i beleive in tokens and in giving the tokens to the most
> qualified from various perspectives.  And I sometime beleive it is best to
> leave a spot open until someone both qualified for the token and talented
> is found.
>
> I don't know if we are saying the same, or similar thing.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 16:04, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>
>> When creating a small sized group with governance authority (direct or
>> as in
>> the case of many ICANN bodies indirectly through recommendations to the
>> Board, most of which are accepted) it is important to remember that the
>> goal
>> should be to create the best group for the purpose, not simply to gather
>> a
>> set of the best individuals. In particular due to various institutional
>> settings which produce a surfeit of straight white males from developed
>> countries with the knowledge, skills and political connections if one
>> simply
>> choose the top n individuals on personal merit from a filtered pool of
>> available candidates, then the likely outcome is non-representative
>> (dominated by or even entirely made up of SWMs from developed
>> countries).
>> Such a group does not have the breadth of experience which would make a
>> good
>> governance body. Hence ICANN and many other groups have mechanisms to
>> provide
>> for diversity in the selection of members of governing groups which
>> provide
>> the group as a whole with a better range of experiences on which to
>> draw,
>> improving the quality of the work of that group as well as its apparent
>> legitimacy to those affected by its activity. This is not about tokenism
>> or
>> discrimination against a majority, but is all about favouring a global
>> maximum of group talent instead of a combination of local maxima of
>> individual talent.
>>
>> (For the record, I'm a straight, white male citizen of one developed
>> country
>> and resident of another.)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
>> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/
>>
>