> Board positions also tend to be taken up by people toward the end of their careers, most of whom are men, Potts said, adding that this may shift in the next g

> Board positions also tend to be taken up by people toward the end of their careers, most of whom are men, Potts said, adding that this may shift in the next generation. I guess I don't understand the argument: 1. Too many quota slots for too few qualified female candidates. (The argument implied by the very first paragraph of the article.) 2. Too many quota slots for too few qualified female candidates who the same age as the typical male board member. (The argument implied in this quote.) 3. I'm going to say there are too few qualified female candidates to generate a title suitable for much clicking. Then in the interview I'll switch to talking about how I've met a lot of perfectly capable female candidates of the younger generations and speculate about how they'll probably eventually fill board positions in the future. (The argument implied by the "smell" I get from clicking on stories like these and leaving with no more knowledge than I had before I clicked.) 4. Something completely different. Which is it? I can't tell because it appears a stenographer wrote down utterances from an ostensibly well-known person in their field, and didn't press for clarification or supporting evidence. Edit: clarification