Sally would probably be very helpful to reach a wider group. She has direct lines with media and it is likely that some/many of these would assist in getting the message out. Could perhaps also contact StackOverflow (others?) and see if they would be interested to help out with maybe a small paragraph in their newsletter.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:52 PM Katia Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Shane. > > And what about sending it to: > [email protected] and > [email protected] > As the *effective* group of people we can contact with hopes of responses? > > Would be acceptable to define “contributor” in this survey as people > involved with the ASF and that we could reach them out by the mailing > lists? > How could we justify being more inclusive but at the same time effective > because sending postal cards or phone calls or any other channel different > from email is not viable. Is it possible to justify or not? > > I understand that “all” is a big term and might be impossible to be done if > we are strict with the terminology and what it implies so my question would > be is it possible or desirable to focus on committers and a sector of non > committers (don’t know how small or big it would be dev@) to get an > initial > idea of the barriers they are encountering while trying to join us? > > I can see both points of view. I am not 100 percent sure if it is better > this way or the other. From my perspective, only committers is limited but > I struggle justifying or defining the definition of “contributors” that we > are using here and that it doesn’t have to be necessarily a definition to > be used in other projects. I think there is space to define this term but I > wouldn’t like to be arbitrary and exclude people because it is not possible > to contact them. > > Thanks, > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:46, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Katia Rojas wrote on 2019-10-23 3:22PM GMT+2: > > ...snip... > > > Where should we send the survey that we've been working on? > > > > > > So far there is a strong opinion on sending it only to the > > > [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > The main purpose of this survey is to gather feedback from all existing > > ASF > > > contributors about the current level of diversity and inclusion, > > including > > > education, age, socio-economic status, and gender. > > ...snip... > > "All existing ASF contributors" is tens of thousands of people, many of > > whom we may not have any effective way to contact (i.e. drive-by > > contributors to various Apache projects in the past). So defining > > "contributor" is important; it's also important to decide what > > *effective* group of people we can contact with hopes of responses. > > > > dev@diversity will only get a very small number of highly self-selected > > individuals, so is no where near what we need. > > > > It seems to me (and I'm not on the survey team), the best thing to do is > > mirror the existing 2016 survey and send a single, well-written email to > > [email protected] asking all Apache committers to respond. While > > that won't catch non-committers who have contributed, it's a very > > important metric to start with, and is much easier than trying to > > contact all-dev@ lists or use the giant announce@ list. > > > > I understand the goal; but the effort and effectiveness for reaching > > *all* contributors is much higher. It feels like getting a really solid > > set of committer data first might be best. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Note also that there are specific technical rules for successfully > > emailing committers@ or other wide lists, so be sure to work with infra > > or someone to get help before physically sending the mail. > > > > -- > > > > - Shane > > Director & Member > > The Apache Software Foundation > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
