> Now, this is what I know as "equality in opportunity" and is why I am somewhat skeptical to efforts focused on increasing so called diversity for the sake of diversity, also known as "equality in outcome".
The implication of this line of thought is that, for example, women have the opportunity to contribute to Apache and simply lack the skills to do so. (I hope this sounds as absurd and as grossly offensive to the other people on this list as it does to me.) If women CHOOSE not to contribute, then we ought to start thinking about why they would choose not to contribute. It might be the case, for example, that Apache isn't a very hospitable place for women. And if that's the case then, how accurate is it really to say we provide "equal opportunity". Or perhaps it is the case that women are disadvantaged by society in ways that make contributing to Apache hard (for example, not having the economic security or free time necessary to contribute). And if that's the case, if our organisation is only accessible to certain types of people, then how accurate is it really to say we provide "equal opportunity". Given that Apache exists to produce software for the public good (an inherently political goal) it behooves us to understand the political forces at work that impede our ability to grow and look after a community of people who can help us do that. On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 09:06 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> > wrote: > > > > > Now, this is what I know as "equality in opportunity" and is why I am > > somewhat skeptical to efforts focused on increasing so called diversity > for > > the sake of diversity, also known as "equality in outcome". IMHO, a > highly > > politicized topic, something that ASF traditionally has stayed away from, > > except when it comes to "identity politics", because everyone is scared > of > > being classified in the negative. > > > > Understanding your skepticism, is there a reason for you to project that > into many other individuals' interests and concerns? It seems like a sort > or rude way to inject your politics into a sincere inquiry. For that > matter, > although I hadn't known of individuals at the ASF (I might know them, but > am unaware) - I've known many physically disabled computer scientists > who find some amazing adaptive technologies to let them do what they > want to do, and in our thousands of committers, already trust that there > are dozens in our lot who are doing fine. [Edit to add, you and I are very > familiar with one specific individual within the membership, but I'm not > going to call that individual out unless they want to dive into this > discussion. And I'm still sure there are others who haven't shared.] > > > > [1] In Apache Zest, we had a professional, classical musician creating an > > example project, and in that gave a lot of useful feedback. When we found > > out that he never worked in software, we were all quite surprised, as his > > work was of remarkably high caliber. I think this is rather common... > > > > We had an an airline pilot. Collectively, we come from very diverse > upbringing, > educations, career paths, genders and castes. I found your reply in defense > of refusing to let others ponder such questions you don't want to ponder > really insulting. Participate in such studies, or don't. Study the results, > or don't. The agenda is inclusion, and it seems that you are happy to have > many people included in your projects. If that is the case, the dismissive > tone of your posts, but particularly reacting to specific posts like this, > is > simply impolite. > > Cheers, > > Bill >
