Re: on "meritocracy"

Craig, I was tempted to ask the same but in reverse re divers...@apache.org. I am wary of dropping the "inclusion" aspect. On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 19:48, Craig Russell wrote: > Before we get locked into this JIRA, could we consider changing its name > to DIVERSITY instead of DI ? > > Craig > > > O

Re: on "meritocracy"

Outreachy is great and we should add that to a list of things to look into re our efforts, working with them, etc. I met Karen Sandler in person once and she is good people. On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 19:56, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 2:59 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > > > I asked

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 2:59 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > I asked the D&I folks at $dayjob for some advice / suggestions and got > back the following: > > 1. Mozilla have been doing some work in this area. It was suggested we > reach out to them to get the benefit of their experience. Anyone have > an

Re: on "meritocracy"

Before we get locked into this JIRA, could we consider changing its name to DIVERSITY instead of DI ? Craig > On Apr 2, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > @joan - I also get a Pony, I requested the Jira ;) > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 10:03 AM Joan Touzet wrote: > >> >> >> >> Dani

Re: on "meritocracy"

I don't know why I missed Mark's email, it appeared in a different thread in my Gmail. I will take your suggestions Mark and embed them into a proposal in the new Jira board. Thank you!!! This is inspiring, motivating and amazing. On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 12:59 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > I asked the

Re: on "meritocracy"

Thank you! On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 10:12 AM Daniel Gruno wrote: > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?divers...@apache.org > > > > On 02/04/2019 12.03, Joan Touzet wrote: > > > > > > > > Daniel wrote: > > > >> Requested, and should be ready within an hour or two. > > > > Thank you! You get a pony! >

Re: on "meritocracy"

Griselda Cuevas wrote: > @joan - I also get a Pony, I requested the Jira ;) Of course you do! (Use a monospace font for best rendering...) ,--, _ ___/ /\| ;( )__, ) ; // '--; \ | ^^ -Joan "Caaan do!" Touzet

Re: on "meritocracy"

https://lists.apache.org/list.html?divers...@apache.org On 02/04/2019 12.03, Joan Touzet wrote: Daniel wrote: Requested, and should be ready within an hour or two. Thank you! You get a pony! -Joan "JFDI" Touzet - To u

Re: on "meritocracy"

@Sam - let's arrange a date & time. I am on my phone (currently at FlinkForward), but when I get my laptop I'll send a Doodle in a new thread to schedule. Thanks all for chiming in and helping move this forward, all get ponies :) On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 10:06 AM Griselda Cuevas wrote: > @joan - I

Re: on "meritocracy"

@joan - I also get a Pony, I requested the Jira ;) On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 10:03 AM Joan Touzet wrote: > > > > Daniel wrote: > > > Requested, and should be ready within an hour or two. > > Thank you! You get a pony! > > -Joan "JFDI" Touzet > > ---

Re: on "meritocracy"

Daniel wrote: > Requested, and should be ready within an hour or two. Thank you! You get a pony! -Joan "JFDI" Touzet - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@c

Re: on "meritocracy"

Let's you and I find some time to chat, possibly with ross and others, and we can bring a proposal back to the list. On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 12:44 PM Griselda Cuevas wrote: > +1 to divers...@apache.org > > I want to move forward on creating a president's committee. How do I do > that? > > On Tue, A

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 02/04/2019 11.37, Joan Touzet wrote: Daniel Gruno said: On 02/04/2019 11.34, Joan Touzet wrote: Daniel said: On 02/04/2019 11.29, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touzet wrote: Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: Daniel Gruno said: I'd recommend a separate mailing li

Re: on "meritocracy"

Daniel Gruno said: > On 02/04/2019 11.34, Joan Touzet wrote: > > Daniel said: > >> On 02/04/2019 11.29, Daniel Gruno wrote: > >>> On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touzet wrote: > Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: > > Daniel Gruno said: > > I'd recommend a separate mailing list

Re: on "meritocracy"

+1 to divers...@apache.org I want to move forward on creating a president's committee. How do I do that? On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 9:36 AM Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 02/04/2019 11.34, Joan Touzet wrote: > > Daniel said: > >> On 02/04/2019 11.29, Daniel Gruno wrote: > >>> On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touz

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 02/04/2019 11.34, Joan Touzet wrote: Daniel said: On 02/04/2019 11.29, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touzet wrote: Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: Daniel Gruno said: I'd recommend a separate mailing list (to provide focus) and a JIRA, perhaps some place to put doc

Re: on "meritocracy"

Daniel said: > On 02/04/2019 11.29, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touzet wrote: > >> Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: > >> > >> Daniel Gruno said: > >>> I'd recommend a separate mailing list (to provide focus) and a > >>> JIRA, > >>> perhaps some place to put documents

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 02/04/2019 11.29, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touzet wrote: Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: Daniel Gruno said: I'd recommend a separate mailing list (to provide focus) and a JIRA, perhaps some place to put documents (either within the comdev svn area, or somewhere

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:39 PM Griselda Cuevas wrote: > ...this rationale still treats the effort to embrace the need for a > Diversity and Inclusion strategy as a proof of concept, expecting it will > die... FWIW that's not my angle. I was just trying to keep things simple, and small reversible

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 02/04/2019 11.26, Joan Touzet wrote: Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: Daniel Gruno said: I'd recommend a separate mailing list (to provide focus) and a JIRA, perhaps some place to put documents (either within the comdev svn area, or somewhere else if spun off), and then...just get to

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Apr 2, 2019, at 12:11 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > The specific organizational structure does indeed seem like a moot topic. > What matters is that wherever this take place, the group is given *space and > freedom* to get some work done. I'd be fine with it being within ComDev, I'd >

Re: on "meritocracy"

Trying to cut through the bikeshedding: Daniel Gruno said: > I'd recommend a separate mailing list (to provide focus) and a JIRA, > perhaps some place to put documents (either within the comdev svn > area, > or somewhere else if spun off), and then...just get to work :) This is what Griselda pro

Re: on "meritocracy"

what I liked about Mark's proposal for a VP D&I is that it sets a very clear top-down message that the Board is taking this matter seriously and that ongoing monthly reports are something we are committing to I think that is diluted somewhat in both intent and impact if this is "relegated" to a pr

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 02/04/2019 10.57, Jim Jagielski wrote: I don't think anyone expects it to die, but rather that D&I be one of the core aspects of community development and not an effort, in and of itself. If it reaches critical mass and warrants being spun out (due to clear division of tasks between D&I and Co

Re: on "meritocracy"

Ah. Ok. That's fair. I retract my comment. I was seeing going the full top-level committee thing as being a bureaucratic stumbling block, and not in this light. I have no strong preference one way or the other and merely wanted to remove obstacles. Your reasoning is compelling and right. Go for i

Re: on "meritocracy"

I don't think anyone expects it to die, but rather that D&I be one of the core aspects of community development and not an effort, in and of itself. If it reaches critical mass and warrants being spun out (due to clear division of tasks between D&I and ComDev) then I think everyone would support th

Re: on "meritocracy"

Top-post: Couldn’t this be made a President’s committee now and the board can chat about it elsewhere until the next board meeting in a few weeks? The board could even defer until there are Policy recommendations. (I’m not excited about reading yet another passionate Jim/Sam debate about which

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 4/2/2019 8:12 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: ... It's just that the comdev PMC is responsible for oversight and reporting on those new initiatives, and it keeps things simple for now. That is exactly what troubles me about making the new initiative part of ComDev. There seems to me to be

Re: on "meritocracy"

I agree with Sam that if we do not formalize this as a committee it will die. I understand and acknowledge the reasons why this being part of ComDev makes sense: simplicity and agility to get off the ground. However, this rationale still treats the effort to embrace the need for a Diversity and I

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:57 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > ...My feeling is that it will die here... IIUC what's been proposed so far is a new mailing list and issue tracker. Both can very well be owned by comdev and that shouldn't limit progress in any way. It's just that the comdev PMC is responsible f

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 10:48 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:53 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > > ...In the spirit of small reversible steps, starting as a ComDev > > initiative, and then, if needed, graduating to its own entity later?... > > Good point, that's what I was trying

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:53 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > ...In the spirit of small reversible steps, starting as a ComDev > initiative, and then, if needed, graduating to its own entity later?... Good point, that's what I was trying to say, but better said ;-) -Bertrand --

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:53 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > On 4/2/19 7:05 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Does it need to be its own entity? Why can't this be a task/effort under >> ComDev's control/charter? It certainly seems to fit under the >> concept of comdev and the people are already here...

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 4/2/19 7:05 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Does it need to be its own entity? Why can't this be a task/effort under > ComDev's control/charter? It certainly seems to fit under the > concept of comdev and the people are already here... In the spirit of small reversible steps, starting as a ComDev

Re: on "meritocracy"

Hi Sam, On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:25 PM Sam Ruby wrote: > ...My recommendation at this time is that it becomes a committee,.. > There are early talks about this group having a budget and hiring a > vendor. The organizational structure chosen should be one that > enables that... Ok, let's wait f

Re: on "meritocracy"

IMO, this sounds like a cmmt that will defining and implementing policy... which is a board prerogative. My pref would be, if this really does need to be outside of ComDev, it be a board cmmt > On Apr 2, 2019, at 7:25 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM Bertrand Delacretaz >

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > We've had problems in the past with lists becoming orphaned after some > time because they didn't clearly belong to one of our PMCs. My recommendation at this time is that it becomes a committee, complete with requirements to produce e

Re: on "meritocracy"

Does it need to be its own entity? Why can't this be a task/effort under ComDev's control/charter? It certainly seems to fit under the concept of comdev and the people are already here... > On Apr 1, 2019, at 6:31 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > Another update. > > I'm writing the note to operat

Re: on "meritocracy"

Hi, On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 12:13 AM Sam Ruby wrote: > ...What would you like for the name of the list? divers...@apache.org? > da...@pache.org? d...@apache.org? If you pick a name, you can request > this yourself... We've had problems in the past with lists becoming orphaned after some time b

Re: on "meritocracy"

Another update. I'm writing the note to operati...@apache.org to request the creation of an entity to support and govern diversity and inclusion work. I've added the name of everyone who volunteered here initially, with the caveat that I might have missed someone, so please follow up on the new th

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:33 PM Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 17:38, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:25 PM Griselda Cuevas > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks everyone for the encouragement and recognition. > > > > > > I'm happy to work on the Jira board this weekend

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 17:38, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:25 PM Griselda Cuevas > wrote: > > > > Thanks everyone for the encouragement and recognition. > > > > I'm happy to work on the Jira board this weekend. Can I just start a new > > one on my personal account and add people t

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 3/30/19 10:25 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: we don't need to get buy-in from everyone. thank God. because it would never happen. all we need is a critical mass in order to be able to get work done. SO. MUCH. THIS. I didn't read this thread at all this weekend, and this morning am trying to pu

Re: on "meritocracy"

thanks so much for this, Mark! this is great! I'm feeling more hopeful than ever that something really good can come from this! On Sun 31. Mar 2019 at 21:59, Mark Thomas wrote: > I asked the D&I folks at $dayjob for some advice / suggestions and got > back the following: > > 1. Mozilla have been

Re: on "meritocracy"

I asked the D&I folks at $dayjob for some advice / suggestions and got back the following: 1. Mozilla have been doing some work in this area. It was suggested we reach out to them to get the benefit of their experience. Anyone have any contacts there? 2. Mozilla joined https://womensleadership.st

Re: on "meritocracy"

Top posting. "you're on the sidelines; the President said so". None of the quotes you provided were my words, nor do they support the claim that I made that statement. I'm pleased that we agree on Griselda's plan. - Sam Ruby On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 5:23 PM Wade Chandler wrote: > > > > On Mar

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:57 PM Wade Chandler wrote: >> >> And mine was there is a line in this thread attacking the way a lot of very >> inclusive people work here, and that line is like "your points have no >> merit, but we'll make changes a

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. >> > > simplistic and incorrect > > discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell a

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:57 PM Wade Chandler wrote: > > And mine was there is a line in this thread attacking the way a lot of very > inclusive people work here, and that line is like "your points have no > merit, but we'll make changes and drive them, that affect the whole org, > while using mer

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:17 PM Ross Gardler wrote: > I think the problem is that *I* used the term "positive discrimination". That > has led to an interpretation of someone elses words through a cloudy lens. > Before making assumptions about that other persons intent you should listen > to the

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") Making accommodations. IMO, 'affirmative action' should be avoided too much political baggage. > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Let u

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Myrle Krantz > wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: I've done a lot

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Wade Chandler wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 14:44 Naomi Slater wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Myrle Krantz wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> > On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Naomi Slater >>

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

; From: Naomi Slater > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:50 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on > "meritocracy") > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> Discrimi

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 14:44 Naomi Slater wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Myrle Krantz wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Naomi Slater > wrote: > > > > > > > > I've done a > > > > lot of work for Apache

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

Let use the term "affirmative action" from now on... From: Naomi Slater Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:50 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") On Sat,

Re: on "meritocracy"

Hi - One observation is that those who seem trollish may also have something else going on somewhere else in the overall Apache Community and it might be those annoyances for which they may or may not ever have resolution that may be “coloring” their interaction. If you are aware of it then you

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. > simplistic and incorrect discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell apart we discriminate when we determine who "has merit". but most people a

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Myrle Krantz wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > > > > > I've done a > > > lot of work for Apache and this is the first time I recall seeing your > > > name. so I hope y

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > > > I've done a > > lot of work for Apache and this is the first time I recall seeing your > > name. so I hope you will excuse me for not thinking your imputation > carries > > much

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

ining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") > I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against anyone. > But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as you > protect my right to help you achieve the > right balance in o

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 1:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > >> I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against >> anyone. But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as >> you protect my right to help you achieve the >> right balance in our broader commun

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > I've done a > lot of work for Apache and this is the first time I recall seeing your > name. so I hope you will excuse me for not thinking your imputation carries > much weight > Please don't go there. For the record, I've done more th

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:33 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > > I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against > > anyone. But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long > > as you protect my right to help you achieve the > > right balance in our broader commu

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 14:33, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > >> I would ask that this goes both ways... I think in order to get buy-in >> from everyone, instead of those who may not agree with some premise, >> > > we don't need to get buy-

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:21 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:33 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> I would ask that this goes both ways... I think in order to get buy-in >> from everyone, instead of those who may not agree with some premise, >> our reaction should not be "you are

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

> I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against anyone. > But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as you > protect my right to help you achieve the > right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of any > discrimination (

Re: on "meritocracy"

:-) Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Naomi Slater Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 9:54:52 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Cc: Wade Chandler Subject: Re: on "meritocracy" my mistake! thanks for clarifying On Sat, 30 Mar 201

Re: on "meritocracy"

36> > > > > From: Naomi Slater > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 9:45 AM > Subject: Re: on "meritocracy" > To: dev@community.apache.org > Cc: Wade Chandler > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 17:21, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > "this is the last time I will

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

Thanks for this post, Shane. You share a number of my concerns. I am absolutely not blind to opposition to some of the things I've suggested, but I would argue that the thread on the topic has become so negative and heated that informed discussion isn't useful. Again I encourage others to listen

Re: on "meritocracy"

You said "this is the last time I will reply to you". I intended to say there is great honor in doing that. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Naomi Slater Sent: Saturday, March 30, 9:45 AM Subject: Re: on "meritocracy" To: dev@community.apache.

Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

ka.ms/ghei36> From: Shane Curcuru Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:43:08 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") Joan Touzet wrote on 3/30/19 12:52 AM: ...snip... > Precisely t

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 17:21, Ross Gardler wrote: > "this is the last time I will reply to you" > > Daniel has a sayibg that I hope we can adopt to avoid unproductive debate. > I apply it here to Naomi: "there is great honor in the email not sent" > I don't know why you keep singling *me* out as

Re: on "meritocracy"

___ From: Naomi Slater Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:00:20 AM To: Wade Chandler Cc: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: on "meritocracy" On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 15:57, Wade Chandler wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:26 Naomi Slater wrote: > >> >> >>>

Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")

Joan Touzet wrote on 3/30/19 12:52 AM: ...snip... > Precisely the point. I'm in favour of this, though I know others are > actively against it. I talked about this at length during my > ApacheCon 2018 talk, proposing options that are well thought-out and > fair, drawing from a wide variety of sourc

Re: on "meritocracy"

On 30/03/2019 09.57, Wade Chandler wrote: In another message I ask about a wiki page etc. That might he helpful, and seems if this issue has been attempted to be addressed for such a long period of time in the context of Apache, there will be plenty of material to help us all do more than argue o

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 15:57, Wade Chandler wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:26 Naomi Slater wrote: > >> >> >>> We are many things, good and bad. We should not be hypocrites. After >>> all, isn't that the core problem we are discussing: claiming to be >>> all about community and then disenfranc

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:26 Naomi Slater wrote: > > >> We are many things, good and bad. We should not be hypocrites. After >> all, isn't that the core problem we are discussing: claiming to be >> all about community and then disenfranchising huge swatches of people? >> > > you are doing the same

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 15:33, Wade Chandler wrote: > "that sucks and is evil, is the cause, that also makes Apache suck" > this is the second time you've alluded to vaguely nationalistic-type rhetoric to, essentially, accuse me of not caring about Apache. I've done a lot of work for Apache and

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 08:01 Naomi Slater wrote: On Sat 30. Mar 2019 at 07:02, Wade Chandler wrote: But, I'm sure you'll have a good D&I initiative if you continue to marginalize people like you did there; treat others as insignificant or peripheral. "marginalize" *Inigo Montoya voice* you

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 14:33, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I would ask that this goes both ways... I think in order to get buy-in > from everyone, instead of those who may not agree with some premise, > we don't need to get buy-in from everyone. thank God. because it would never happen. all we need i

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:33 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > I would ask that this goes both ways... I think in order to get buy-in > from everyone, instead of those who may not agree with some premise, > our reaction should not be "you are wrong; you just can't see it. So STFU." > Instead, help educa

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 1:21 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > I ask that everyone reading this far take a moment to think the above > through. It means the issues that cause us to have poor diversity are mostly > invisible to us. Therefore we assume the problem doesn't exist or isn't as > severe a

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Sat 30. Mar 2019 at 07:02, Wade Chandler wrote: > > But, I'm sure > you'll have a good D&I initiative if you continue to marginalize people > like you did there; treat others as insignificant or peripheral. > "marginalize" *Inigo Montoya voice* you keep using that word. I do not think it mean

Re: on "meritocracy"

Much of your response was negative in many ways. You're talking about D&I initiatives, and at the same time stating "it's" a big deal, and we're moving forward, and you're on the sidelines; the President said so. Good campaigns sell the message, and have a strategy to touch the problem, not shove t

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:52 PM Joan Touzet wrote: > "Wade Chandler" wrote: > > On one hand an organization “can” actively keep > > people out based on personal attributes; intentional negative & bad; > > don’t see this here; if you do, please give direct links; most will > > certainly see that

Re: on "meritocracy"

kes (and been called out on it privately so I can continue to improve). I'll try to do better. We all need to do better. A good first step is to accept that there is a problem and ask how we can contribute to fixing it rather than spending time denying it exists. Ross ___

Re: on "meritocracy"

"Wade Chandler" wrote: > On one hand an organization “can” actively keep > people out based on personal attributes; intentional negative & bad; > don’t see this here; if you do, please give direct links; most will > certainly see that the same. Naming and shaming in a public forum isn't a good id

Re: on "meritocracy"

> On Mar 28, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >>> but in practice, this isn't true. and our committer demographics >>> demonstrate this >> >> Then those PMCs have a f'ed up definition and measure of merit. >> > > but this is

Re: on "meritocracy"

rg/dev/infra-contact From: Sam Ruby Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 5:38 PM To: Apache Community Dev Subject: Re: on "meritocracy" On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:25 PM Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the encouragement and recognition. > > I'm ha

Re: on "meritocracy"

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:25 PM Griselda Cuevas wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the encouragement and recognition. > > I'm happy to work on the Jira board this weekend. Can I just start a new > one on my personal account and add people to it? or does someone need to > create it under an Apache acco

Re: on "meritocracy"

Thanks everyone for the encouragement and recognition. I'm happy to work on the Jira board this weekend. Can I just start a new one on my personal account and add people to it? or does someone need to create it under an Apache account? - If the later, can someone create it and give me admin access

Re: on "meritocracy"

I don't find this off-topic. I am grateful for this profile of Drupal, which I otherwise would not have been exposed to. Thanks Justin! I want to bring the main section headers and key items (curated by me) of the Drupal article on list for ease of reading and archival. Apologies for redundancy wi

Re: on "meritocracy"

Hi Griselda, I was thinking along similar lines: measuring where we are, setting goals, making policy, putting together a team to make it happen. I love your enthusiasm and hope we can actually create something great from your ideas. Just as we recognized the value in a fund-raising group, it'

Re: on "meritocracy"

Hi, Slightly off topic but relevant. One think we could do is look at other foundations and communities and see what they have done that has worked for them. I come across this interesting artifice this morning [1]. Note it includes the steps that community took to build a diverse community, I’

Re: on "meritocracy"

+0.999 (I think this is a great idea, and I'd love to be a part of it, contribute with my insights from the various under-represented categories I fall into and mistakes I've learned over the past years, but unsure how much time I can devote at present). It will be an interesting journey, and

Re: on "meritocracy"

Sign me up as well. I assume there will be some announcement of the mailing list or jira board here? Interested in observing where ASF goes on the meritocracy thread, interested in actively contributing where I can on diversity efforts. Kenn On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 10:57 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote

Re: on "meritocracy"

Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:13 PM Joan Touzet wrote: > ...I think Bertrand here has the > lead since he's working on the website refresh Not really, I helped update a small part of apache.org for the 20th anniversary but that's it. However, if we can come to a consensus about that needs t

Re: on "meritocracy"

agreed with Joan I would like to be a part of the "meritocracy" conversation as it moves under Bertrand's initiative. where do I sign up for that? I would also like to contribute to the D&I work/initiative/committee Sam said: "I'm impressed with the detail, and with the speed with which you pro

Re: on "meritocracy"

> TL;DR: identify a list of tangible deliverables, and I'll help you > make it happen. In the interest of not losing sight of the meritocracy debate, along with the D&I work (which I'm happy to engage on, someone sign me up), we need to actually solve the original "meritocracy" problem. I proposed

  1   2   >