I object to the form of this "request/demand" but so what. The decision has been made, obviously, and any objection or discussion will obviously not be booked nor brokered.
Sad. But this is what happens when politics invade. I wish D&I all the best, but with the continual self-congratulatory back-slapping that will obviously occur, and the "holier-than-thou" attitudes, I have my doubts. What a great auspicious start to a task supposedly about Diversity and Inclusion. I will waste no more of my time on this. Good luck. o+o > On Apr 30, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Ross Gardler > <ross.gard...@microsoft.com.INVALID> wrote: > > + ComDev > > Com Dev we intend to move the D&I responsibility to a separate Presidents > committee. The outputs will be fully integrated with ComDev, but actions will > be separate in order to allow a scalpel like approach independent of the > broader interests of ComDev which should focus on all community, not just > some. > > I want to be very clear about why I phrase my request this way, and why I am > sorting this move. I speak as the original VP of ComDev, past director and > president, current EVP and, most importantly, white, middle aged and male, > with a somewhat unique experience and over 30 years of advocacy for equality > (including a politically and diversity motivated music career, living as part > of a 3% minority, running a consultancy with a partner specializing in > accessibility, dealing with D&I issues in my day job and my home life and > generally being aware that despite all this I'm full of unconcious bias). > > I was the point of contact for the CoC here at the ASF for a number of years > and as a result was involved with a number of cases, three of which involved > law enforcement. I repeat, the of which involved law enforcement. > > What most people fail to understand is that there is a "build up" of isms. > What might be small (like saying "you guys") is one droplet of "ism" that > fills the pool that ultimately either drowns people or drives them away in > self preservation. > > Most of the issues we have are droplets like this (though please remember > three cases involved law enforcement). Very few of us, if any, are outright > sexist or racist or "ableist". Yet the majority of us contribute, > inadvertently, to the problem through unconscious bias. > > Nobody is asking us to be perfect. But we are asking for people to recognize > they are imperfect. Just these discussions about the need for D&I are > examples of the problem. > > ComDev should support the separation of the D&I initiative so that it can > continue to focus on community all-up. D&I should be a Presidents committee > where things can get done without participants having to face the pointless > and endless discussions over whether there is even a problem. > > I know that's not how the Apache Way works, but we have precedence all over > the place. The key is to ensure there is oversight to prevent overstepping. > > Even ComDev itself, which was set up to run GSoC engagements, ran for years > as me being a BD organizing GSoC, otherwise we would have spent all the GSOC > planning time arguing about how to evaluate projects and how the process is > unfair. ComDev was created when I had solidified the process, not before. PR, > which devolved into a shooting match unable to progress eventually became > Sally and the board kicked everyone out and let Sally rebuild. ConCom also > failed because of the noise. It took years of Rich being a BD before we got > into a healthy state, even today with a committee, we have leads for each > event. Legal, trademarks, finance - all are structured this way. All remain > answerable to the board, sometimes via Prez, > and thus the membership regardless of structure. > > 2015 was the first year I spoke about D&I as Prez. It was far too late. > > Others had been trying for years. > > I considered the fact that I would be attacked for doing it (and I was). > > I did it anyway (and I was right to do so). > > Since then we've done alot, but not enough. > > Time to step up or get out of the way. I welcome oversight, I reject > obstructionist behavior. > > ComDev please acknowledge we need to spin the D&I effort off. We need to > empower the creation of finely tuned activities to help our communities > understand this space. We need that to be a part - of the broader ComDev > effort, but it should not be subject to the unconscious bias of the majority, > like me. > > Ross > > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:46:13 AM > To: divers...@apache.org > Subject: Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee > reporting to the President > > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> ...I guess the main question is whether or not ComDev, which has D&I in its >> charter and mandate, is OK with another cmmt taking on its role in this >> area... > > Good point, I agree that the comdev PMC needs to agree to "spin off" > D&I to a distinct committee or PMC. > >> ...That seems very, very wonky to me and quite out of form.. > > I see it as just one thing that needs to be fixed and is easy to fix, > by a comdev PMC vote for example - no big deal. > > -Bertrand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
