Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Mat Witts]

I agree with Carmen that extended conversations on such complex topics
as discrimination is rarely constructive.

However, I would like to point out a few gaps in the thread that may be
of interest.

Firstly, it is I think important to maintain a distinction between the
broad, cognitive aspect of discrimination, which is ethically neutral
(for example our ability to discriminate between a range of stimuli such
as colours, smells and sounds) through to our ability to discriminate on
moral grounds, such as whether an individual may be responsible for
anti-social behavior on grounds of intention or by accident.

We make many such discriminating judgments everyday, including making a
distinction between groups of people, for example if they represent a
threat or a friendship group.

So, it seems naive to suggest that all discrimination is reprehensible
or sub-optimal in these conditions.

Identifying disadvantage I believe is something that is also critical to
feeling empathy, since we would be unable to respond to a wounded animal
for example if we were not able to tell the difference between an
injured creature and a creature that just happens to have motility
functions we do not have, such as a fish that uses a tail to propel
itself efficiently through water.

Treating animals and people differently then seems to be an indicator of
high level sentient functioning, since it prefigures nurturing,
appropriate threat responses, efficient networking and much else besides
I would imagine.

Now that is out of the way we can turn our attention to the pejorative
sense of the word discrimination, which is almost always synonymous with
violence, disparity and harms of one sort or another that can be avoided
if (as Carmen says) they could be avoided in some way.

The suggestion that the broad, general meaning of discrimination as
cognitive predisposition is as 'wrong' as the narrow meaning of harming
another creature or human being based on self-centered prejudice masks
the two different meanings and so the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a
right' isn't a helpful metaphor here.

To use Orwell again: '/discrimination means that we ignore the fact that
we live in a world //where not all people have the same opportunities
and that people of //certain gender or color are privileged' /is not
meant to define discrimination only in gender or racial terms.

Orwell here is providing two exemplary cases, race and gender as being
among the most ubiquitous traits where people are making distinctions
that don't relate to the issue at hand (eg. a persons ability to write
quality software) which we know depends on other things such as using a
good quality copyleft license ;-))/

/Also, finding exceptions to the general rule that white, male interests
are generally over represented in all the most influential and powerful
places around the world does not destroy Orwell's point which is
pointing out that these named power asymmetries are so common,
collectivist discrimination would seem to deliver an outcome where more
disadvantaged people (howsoever this is assessed) would undeniably solve
the problem of lack of representation of disadvantage people so again,
this is not at all contradictory but a direct intervention to solve an
identified problem of lack of representation in whatever group or
organization we are assessing.

Finally, we come to what i think is the main problem, which is how do we
identify the (so called) 'disadvantaged' or 'minority' interests?

This is where Carmen's view is important, because to suggest a person of
colour or a woman is disadvantaged to an extent that they ought to be
given special privileges over white men in every job interview is not
where we want to be.

I agree also that the concept of equality is just as much a means as it
is an end, so how we get to a state of equality has to be equal also if
only to avoid the critical self-defeat as Carmen is keen to point out.

Where people tend to disagree is largely contingent on many factors
which means it's rarely possible to be 'wholly against this type of
discrimination' without taking into account the circumstances in each
case, for example what the aims or goals of a particular policy are
trying to achieve.

I would take issue with the view that the LGBT community approached
their struggle for equality with judicious deployment of
characters/people in popular media. I think a lot of LGBT rights
activists would argue that their cause has been hard won, with many set
backs and not least with unrecognized work from lawyers, business
people, educators and professionals doing what they can to make the
lives of LGBT folk better.

All of this of course necessitated active discrimination since
playwrights, TV producers, directors, financers, lawyers and many others
would have deliberately written such characters into their movies,
advertisements and so forth to give the LGBT community a voice where
there was previously only bigotry and ignorance.

I would 

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Alessandro Rubini]

Carmen Bianca:
>> You are saying that some people deserve
>> your sympathy and support, and other people do not deserve your sympathy
>> and support, by mere virtue of how they were born.  I care for
>> _everybody's_ equality and freedom.  Surely, I hope, that's a good
>> thing.

Seconded. Thanks a lot for raising this point of view.

Nikos:
> I think it's not. What you are saying is that you care equally and
> sympathize with both the oppressor and the victim on a given situation.

You are right in disagreeing in an oppressor/victim setup. But I don't
think we white males are oppressors in this context. It's a fact that
most CS people is male (and maybe white, but maybe not) and this must
be fixed, because it's the result of some social prejudice.  But I
don't think reverse-prejudice is usually the proper way to solve it.

Sure my female students used to be the best in the class, but most
likely just because only the best survived the social selection.
Should I favor female over male within the good students? I don't
think so.

/alessandro, in the darker half of white males, which turns "funny" at times
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Nikos Roussos]

On 09/04/2017 10:14 PM, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
>> I do not think the people who are victims of centuries of paternalist
>> government and colonialism should feel responsible of what the white
>> governing people fell. I really do not care about what they feel
>> actually, I am more interested on what the persons who are victim of
>> segregation feel.
> 
> Well this is where we depart.  You are saying that some people deserve
> your sympathy and support, and other people do not deserve your sympathy
> and support, by mere virtue of how they were born.  I care for
> _everybody's_ equality and freedom.  Surely, I hope, that's a good
> thing.

I think it's not. What you are saying is that you care equally and
sympathize with both the oppressor and the victim on a given situation.

Caring more about people who are victims of oppression doesn't mean you
want to put them in the place of their oppressors. So, sure these type
of initiative focus on specific groups. That doesn't imply hate or any
other feeling for everyone else.

~nikos



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Daniel Guagnin]

On 04.09.2017 10:17, natacha wrote:
> But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that
> it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is
> about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war.

To just negate discrimination makes it even stronger.
That's why to fight the (existing) discrimination against Non-WASP[1] in
favour of WASP. it is necessary to name discrimination.

Stating that there is no difference just hides the social distinctions
which are actually in place and working. This leads to neglecting those
who are discriminated.

[1] Just as example: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Hi Natacha,

On Monday, 4 September 2017 10:17:16 CEST natacha wrote:
> This is my first post on this list that I have been lurking for some

Welcome to the mailing list :-)

> > I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for
> > inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent
> > topics, as well as included in the list of minorities that would be
> > sponsored under the Outreachy program.
> 
> Carmen, the fact that you are a women does not make your voice any
> more important in pulling down a fight that others have led for years
> in order to change as little as they could current worlds order.

I agree that my voice is no more important than anybody else's.  Which
is why I did not claim that.  I am not pulling down any fight, however.
You will find me advocating for freedom and equality for all.  I merely
disagree with this measure.

> > But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds
> > that it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination,
> > which is about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace
> > through war.
> I do not see any relation between building programs to encourage
> diversity and war could you please expand.

It's a metaphor.  Consider also: Drying something by pouring water over
it.  You can't achieve something by doing its opposite.

> I do not think the people who are victims of centuries of paternalist
> government and colonialism should feel responsible of what the white
> governing people fell. I really do not care about what they feel
> actually, I am more interested on what the persons who are victim of
> segregation feel.

Well this is where we depart.  You are saying that some people deserve
your sympathy and support, and other people do not deserve your sympathy
and support, by mere virtue of how they were born.  I care for
_everybody's_ equality and freedom.  Surely, I hope, that's a good
thing.

> > because they might only be hired/accepted because of
> > their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.
> 
> I do not see why people would hire anyone for anything else then their
> skills. Also women and/or black people are not a minority women
> compose more then 50% of the world population and white people in
> general only compose 1/8 of worlds population, it is white men that
> are a minority in this world, but it is also them who run it.

Please replace every instance where I said "minority" with "women and
ethnical minorities in the United States".  I'd like a better word, but
"minority" works reasonably well because, to put it bluntly, the named
groups are minority groups in information technology.  Unfortunately I
have not found a better word, but I'd like suggestions if you have any.
Because, to be fair, "women and ethnical minorities in the United
States" is a mouthful.

> Also what you say implies that non white male might have less skills
> then white male, could you please state references for what you are
> saying here.

You will find that I said the exact opposite.  I said that if a member
of a minority group is given an internship under these discriminatory
guidelines, they may not be sure whether this is owed to their status as
minority (i.e., cheating the system), or because of their high skill
level.  This is a phenomenom well known as imposter syndrome, which is
reasonably common among software engineers.  God knows I sometimes feel
like I'm cheating the system and just winging it rather than having any
substantial merit.  How could I not, when every day I encounter some
software thing I know absolutely nothing about?

> > I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this.  Where there
> > are humans, things sometimes go awry.  Having a more
> > ethnically/sexually diverse cast of humans doesn't change that.
> 
> Could you please reference what you say because I happen to think the
> exact contrary,

Take Switzerland or Belgium, two countries that are diverse in native
ethnicities.  Ask any one person whether they have once had
disagreements in spite of living in such a diverse country, and you will
find that they answer yes.  It is in our nature to sometimes squabble
and disagree, as I suppose we do now.  Diversity does not prevent this.

What you probably mean, is that squabbles occur less often in diverse
environments.  That is an interesting point of view, but I cannot vouch
one way or the other.  I do not know.  I imagine the opposite, because
this increases the surface area of things that people do not have in
common and may thus fight over, but that's just a silly hypothesis.

But the lot of that aside: I have said my piece, which is that I abhor
discrimination of any kind over something so arbitrary and superficial
as gender or ethnicity.  People of all ethnicities and genders are
equals, and I will treat them as equals without any prejudice.  If that
is not enough, I do not know what is.

Having said that, I will not change your mind or anybody else's.  

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[natacha]

On 09/01/2017 09:54 AM, discussion-requ...@lists.fsfe.org wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: FSFE in Outreachy?
> From:
> Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbia...@fsfe.org>
> Date:
> 09/01/2017 07:52 AM
>
> To:
> discussion@lists.fsfe.org
>
>
Dear Carmen

This is my first post on this list that I have been lurking for some
time but it is very impossible for me to let this be said without reacting.
> Re-posting the below, which ended up on the wrong mailing list:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for
> inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent topics, as
> well as included in the list of minorities that would be sponsored under
> the Outreachy program.
Carmen, the fact that you are a women does not make your voice any more
important in pulling down a fight that others have led for years in
order to change as little as they could current worlds order.
>
> But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that
> it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is
> about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war.
I do not see any relation between building programs to encourage
diversity and war could you please expand.
>   It
> generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded
> from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome in
> those who are, 
I do not think the people who are victims of centuries of paternalist
government and colonialism should feel responsible of what the white
governing people fell. I really do not care about what they feel
actually, I am more interested on what the persons who are victim of
segregation feel.
> because they might only be hired/accepted because of
> their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.
I do not see why people would hire anyone for anything else then their
skills. Also women and/or black people are not a minority women compose
more then 50% of the world population and white people in general only
compose 1/8 of worlds population, it is white men that are a minority in
this world, but it is also them who run it.
Also what you say implies that non white male might have less skills
then white male, could you please state references for what you are
saying here.
>
> I would be very against getting involved in this program, though I know
> that the FSFE currently practises positive discrmination selection
> standards for its internship program:
>
>> We want more women to be involved in Free Software. That's why we will
>> give preference to applications from suitably qualified female
>> candidates.
> from https://fsfe.org/contribute/internship.en.html
>
> I'd personally be a little bit disappointed if this carried any
> significance in my being selected as intern, because I do believe that I
> can hold my own with my unique skillset.
I really do not see why you should be judged like this and please feel
reassured no-one has any reason to think that.
>
> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:43:59 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> Increasing diversity could also help avoid situations like this in
>> future.
> I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this.  Where there are
> humans, things sometimes go awry.  Having a more ethnically/sexually
> diverse cast of humans doesn't change that.
Could you please reference what you say because I happen to think the
exact contrary,

regards

natacha



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Fabian Keil]

Carmen Bianca Bakker  wrote:

> On Saturday, 2 September 2017 09:51:36 CEST Nikos Roussos wrote:
> > I don't see any discrimination here, and in general in any initiative
> > that tries to help minorities.  
> 
> It is discrimination by its very definition, though.  That is: making a
> distinction between groups of people.  This program most definitely does
> that.  It distinguishes between a population it identifies as
> disadvantaged minorities (cis/trans women, ethnic minorities in the US),
> and a population it identifies as advantaged members of the majority
> group (everybody else), and treats those populations differently.  One
> population is permitted an internship, and the other is not.
> 
> That is discrimination.  What you probably mean, however, is that this
> is acceptable discrimination to you.  I don't think like that.  Two
> wrongs don't make a right, and I like to stay as consistent as I can in
> my beliefs/opinions: I loathe unjust discrimination.

IANAL but I suspect that the FSFE (a German e.V.) isn't allowed to
participate in Outreachy anyway. My impression is that it would be
a violation of German laws like the AGG:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/__11.html
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/__7.html
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/agg/__1.html

Unless I missed it, there is no "you are allowed to discriminate
based on race, gender, etc. if you pretend that it's for a good
cause" exception.

Fabian


pgpTZcLNEjYpD.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Nikos Roussos]

On September 2, 2017 11:45:20 AM GMT+03:00, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
 wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Saturday, 2 September 2017 09:51:36 CEST Nikos Roussos wrote:
>> I don't see any discrimination here, and in general in any initiative
>> that tries to help minorities.
>
>It is discrimination by its very definition, though.  That is: making a
>distinction between groups of people.

Of people that have same opportunities. So I'd say that these kind of programs 
are meant to reverse discrimination imposed already in our societies.

But you are right, that to some extend we define discrimination differently. I 
see no discrimination because these initiatives don't take away opportunities 
from other groups of people. They can still contribute through other ways that 
already exist out there and in general favor white males.

>I very much prefer alternative methods.  I really admire a lot of the
>LGBT community, for instance, in how they approached their struggle for
>equality.  Their focus on love is exemplary, and the inclusion of gay
>characters/people in popular media -- often as equals -- has done more
>for them than anything else ever could.

Sure, but popular media are mostly in the hands of privileged people, so these 
examples are rare. Also part of the LGBT and fiminism community also organizes 
similar types of initiatives like django-girls, Ruby Girls summer of code, 
pyladies, cryptodinners, etc.

>> There is a well known comic strip that illustrates that fairly well.
>>
>http://comediscovervcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/equity-graphic.j
>> pg
>
>I know this graphic.  I choose to interpret it as class inequality, not
>gender/ethnic inequality.  Low privilege is not by any means inherent
>to
>your gender or ethnicity.  

Different type of inequalities definitely, but all are imposed by the structure 
of our societies. The equality vs equity paradigm is true for all of them.


~nikos
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Hello,

On Saturday, 2 September 2017 09:51:36 CEST Nikos Roussos wrote:
> I don't see any discrimination here, and in general in any initiative
> that tries to help minorities.

It is discrimination by its very definition, though.  That is: making a
distinction between groups of people.  This program most definitely does
that.  It distinguishes between a population it identifies as
disadvantaged minorities (cis/trans women, ethnic minorities in the US),
and a population it identifies as advantaged members of the majority
group (everybody else), and treats those populations differently.  One
population is permitted an internship, and the other is not.

That is discrimination.  What you probably mean, however, is that this
is acceptable discrimination to you.  I don't think like that.  Two
wrongs don't make a right, and I like to stay as consistent as I can in
my beliefs/opinions: I loathe unjust discrimination.

Orwell put it well in Animal Farm.

> Treating these efforts as
> discrimination means that we ignore the fact that we live in a world
> where not all people have the same opportunities and that people of
> certain gender or color are privileged.

I personally find this brush a little too broad.  Gender and ethnicity
aren't excellent indicators of levels of privilege.  Take an orphan
white boy, or a black girl born/adopted into a rich family, and this all
falls apart.

You are right, of course, that _on average_ black people and women get
the shorter end of the stick in many cases.  And that ought to get fixed
as soon as possible.  But that, to me, is not justification for
collectivist discrimination.

I also disagree that treating (positive/affirmative/reverse)
discrimination as discrimination per se means ignoring the state of the
world.  You can be _for_ equality, but _against_ certain methods that
might lead to equality.  And I am wholly against this type of
discrimination.

I very much prefer alternative methods.  I really admire a lot of the
LGBT community, for instance, in how they approached their struggle for
equality.  Their focus on love is exemplary, and the inclusion of gay
characters/people in popular media -- often as equals -- has done more
for them than anything else ever could.

And none of that necessitated active discrimination.

> There is a well known comic strip that illustrates that fairly well.
> http://comediscovervcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/equity-graphic.j
> pg

I know this graphic.  I choose to interpret it as class inequality, not
gender/ethnic inequality.  Low privilege is not by any means inherent to
your gender or ethnicity.  It is a possible indicator at best, but never
absolutely inherent.  Low privilege is, however, inherent to low income.
In which case, I agree that the lower classes require more assistance
than the higher echelons -- at the cost of those higher echelons.

To assume that minorities per se require assistance, is to me the soft
bigotry of low expectations, which I eschew immensely.

But all that aside, I really don't want to cause a huge kerfuffle.  I'm
here for free software, and I've said my bit on this tangent :-)  I
respect your opinion, I just disagree.

Yours sincerely,

-- 
Carmen Bianca Bakker
Technical Intern
Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Nikos Roussos]

On September 1, 2017 8:52:13 AM GMT+03:00, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
 wrote:
>But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds
>that
>it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is
>about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war.  It
>generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded
>from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome
>in
>those who are, because they might only be hired/accepted because of
>their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.

I don't see any discrimination here, and in general in any initiative that 
tries to help minorities. Treating these efforts as discrimination means that 
we ignore the fact that we live in a world where not all people have the same 
opportunities and that people of certain gender or color are privileged.

There is a well known comic strip that illustrates that fairly well.
http://comediscovervcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/equity-graphic.jpg

~nikos
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[MJ Ray]

Carmen Bianca Bakker  wrote:

> But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds
> that it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination,
> which is about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace
> through war.  It generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups
> that are excluded from the given list of minorities, and it generates
> imposter syndrome in those who are, because they might only be
> hired/accepted because of their status as minority, rather than
> excelling in their skillset.

Thank you.  Also, on a practical level, Outreachy's given list of
minorities is very different from the list usually protected by law in
European countries and I suggest that focusing on Outreachy as a
discrimination correction measure can easily mean that
non-gender-or-race discrimination is left unchallenged.

Sometimes things are fuzzy, though: is it disability discrimination to
require an intern to move to a city where only about half the metro is
accessible, or is it a necessary part of the job? Hmmm...

Regards,
-- 

MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Member of http://www.software.coop/ (but this email is my personal view
only)

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Jonas Oberg]

Hi Carmen,

> I would be very against getting involved in this program, though I know
> that the FSFE currently practises positive discrmination selection
> standards for its internship program:

Thank you for raising this. This was actually discussed a while ago as
well, and I had just not committed the change. What our intent is, which
we've now made sure to convey properly, is that when there are candidates
with equal qualification, we will give preference to women.

Being selected as an intern for the FSFE means you are as qualified or
even more so than any other applicant, regardless of your gender.

Sincerely,

-- 
Jonas Öberg
Executive Director

FSFE e.V. - keeping the power of technology in your hands. Your
support enables our work, please join us today http://fsfe.org/join
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 01/09/17 07:52, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> Re-posting the below, which ended up on the wrong mailing list:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for
> inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent topics, as
> well as included in the list of minorities that would be sponsored under
> the Outreachy program.
>
> But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that
> it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is
> about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war.  It
> generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded
> from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome in
> those who are, because they might only be hired/accepted because of
> their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.

In this particular case, Outreachy, many of the people who are not
eligible for Outreachy can already apply to GSoC and be accepted there.

So what Outreachy is doing in this case is simply making a lot of noise
to attract women to apply for internships that are very similar to GSoC

It could be argued that Outreachy should simply direct those applicants
to apply to GSoC though

In numbers: there are usually around 50 women selected in each
Outreachy, while there were over 1,300 people, including women, selected
in the current round of GSoC.

We also have many cases where a woman applies to Outreachy but we
encourage her to duplicate her application in GSoC so she can be funded
with Google's program.  In these cases, when the woman is selected in
GSoC, it is because her application is competitive with the male
applicants and she deserves to be selected on merit.  Yet we would not
have met some of these applicants without the publicity created by
Outreachy.

Some of the points made by Karen Sandler in her talk at DebConf address
your concerns too:

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2017/debconf17/debian-outreachy.vp8.webm

> I would be very against getting involved in this program, though I know
> that the FSFE currently practises positive discrmination selection
> standards for its internship program:
>
>> We want more women to be involved in Free Software. That's why we will
>> give preference to applications from suitably qualified female
>> candidates.
> from https://fsfe.org/contribute/internship.en.html
>
> I'd personally be a little bit disappointed if this carried any
> significance in my being selected as intern, because I do believe that I
> can hold my own with my unique skillset.
>
> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:43:59 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> Increasing diversity could also help avoid situations like this in
>> future.
> I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this.  Where there are
> humans, things sometimes go awry.  Having a more ethnically/sexually
> diverse cast of humans doesn't change that.
>
> Be that as it may, I don't aim to change any hearts or minds.  I just
> wanted to add my couple of cents.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: FSFE in Outreachy?

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Re-posting the below, which ended up on the wrong mailing list:

Hi,

I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for
inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent topics, as
well as included in the list of minorities that would be sponsored under
the Outreachy program.

But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that
it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is
about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war.  It
generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded
from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome in
those who are, because they might only be hired/accepted because of
their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.

I would be very against getting involved in this program, though I know
that the FSFE currently practises positive discrmination selection
standards for its internship program:

> We want more women to be involved in Free Software. That's why we will
> give preference to applications from suitably qualified female
> candidates.

from https://fsfe.org/contribute/internship.en.html

I'd personally be a little bit disappointed if this carried any
significance in my being selected as intern, because I do believe that I
can hold my own with my unique skillset.

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:43:59 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Increasing diversity could also help avoid situations like this in
> future.

I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this.  Where there are
humans, things sometimes go awry.  Having a more ethnically/sexually
diverse cast of humans doesn't change that.

Be that as it may, I don't aim to change any hearts or minds.  I just
wanted to add my couple of cents.

Yours sincerely,

-- 
Carmen Bianca Bakker
Technical Intern
Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion