Thanks Greg! On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 12:24, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Katia, > > Kevin is interested and part of the D&I effort, and also an expert in > opt-in and unsolicited email. I very much suggest you consult with him > before sending emails to vast groups of people who haven't asked for D&I > emails. > > Cheers, > -g > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 3:26 AM Katia Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Sally, > > > > Sorry about that. > > > > We would like to share this survey with contributors involved with the > > ASF. Where contributors is something bigger than committers, could > included > > non committers. > > > > The main purpose of this survey is to gather feedback from > > existing ASF contributors about the current level of diversity and > > inclusion, including education, age, socio-economic status, and gender. > > > > Which mailing list would be appropriate? > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 03:08, Sally Khudairi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Thank you, Katia. > >> > >> I've seen you trying to send multiple emails to committers@ along with > >> whatever is being disseminated to the [email protected] list. > >> > >> This is improper use of the committers@ email --this list is restricted > >> to very specific types of messages. We cannot be copying 7,000+ > recipients > >> on every conversational message or project update. This why none of your > >> messages have been moderated through. > >> > >> Please let me know specifically what you're looking for (what is your > >> intended outcome) so we can sort out the best way to proceed with a > >> tactical plan. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Sally > >> > >> - - - > >> Vice President Marketing & Publicity > >> Vice President Sponsor Relations > >> The Apache Software Foundation > >> > >> Tel +1 617 921 8656 | [email protected] > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 20:40, Katia Rojas wrote: > >> > Good point. > >> > > >> > I ping press@. Sally, could you help us? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 02:06, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> 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 > >> > > >
