+1
On 2019/05/04 22:06:47, Myrle Krantz wrote:
> I propose that ComDev submmit the following statement to the board:>
>
> "The ComDev PMC hereby requests that the board create a President's>
> committee tasked with supporting our communities in their efforts to be>
> diverse and welcoming places,
other people's efforts is the sort of thing that quickly kills
contributor enthusiasm. I have seen it happen
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 2019, at 9:26 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> >
> >
> > as you are not the person dr
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 15:03, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Personally, I think the right course would be to take the advice
> that having a call when not specifically required to heart and to,
> instead, do all discussion, agenda setting, etc on the diversity@
> list and drop the idea of having a call a
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 22:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Can I recommend instead of a call, using the newly created
> mailing list... In general, Apache tries to avoid the use of
> sync communication medium except when absolutely required.
>
> I think that esp for such a topic as D&I, starting the eff
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
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
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
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
Jim, you have correctly identified that context is important when
interpreting someone's words
On Sat 30. Mar 2019 at 22:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If you heard on the TV that the Mayor was charged with
> discrimination, your first reaction would not be to
> assume that she is choosy about her g
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
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 i
my mistake! thanks for clarifying
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 17:52, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 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/ghei
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
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: claimi
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
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
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
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
in your email, you say that we have made a lot of progress. but I disagree.
we have made *some* progress. and that progress is good. but it is nowhere
near enough. and I don't intend to stop complaining
I am extremely grateful to every person who has helped us make that
progress. but as Rich said,
On Thu 28. Mar 2019 at 18:46, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Well said...
indeed
>
> "Where we, the ASF, are and continue to be is abnormal. The difference
> from industry norms is statistically significant. And durable."
>
> The only way for this to change is for each of us to "be the change".
I d
On Thu 28. Mar 2019 at 17:23, Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
>
> Is this survey data available somewhere? I am curious to take a look at
> the survey. Did you happen to do a survey of contributors that were not
> voted in? Do we know what the diversity of the contributor base looks like?
> I was unfortunate
On Thu 28. Mar 2019 at 16:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > this thread, if you go back to the start of it, was my attempt to start
> > that conversation. I have repeatedly given suggestions (both on this
> > thread, and on other threads) for things we could do
> >
>
> I see them, but we have to adm
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:51, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> I fail to see how this would affect the actual work that needs to get
> done. I have long since stopped caring about *persuading* our skeptic
> members about the need to do this work. They're not going to help
> anyways, why bother? And we alrea
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:41, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> I find this to be nitpicking. We have a diversity problem, and should be
> seeking ways to improve the situation.
>
> We are *lightyears* away from a situation where it would be relevant
> whether we have a diversity problem vis-a-vis the global
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:26, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> I have no clue on where to start with this and I'm not sure I'd be able
> to tell a good provider from a bad one. How about this. We have a D&I
> team (diversity and inclusion) at work. I could approach them for some
> recommendations. Thoughts
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 14:35, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So what are you proposing? What actionable corrections can we make
> that don't turn the concept of "it doesn't matter who you are, it is what
> you
> do that counts" on its ear?
>
this thread, if you go back to the start of it, was my attempt
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 true for all PMCs, and indeed our board. we have dismal
representation
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 12:45, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> some people, "meritocracy" is a bad word, and I say I disagree.
>
> even when studies show that using that word *specifically* leads to less
equitable organizations?
>"Merit has nothing to do with gender, or race, or religion,
> or wh
agreed with Sam
we can't claim that race, gender, etc, "are not relevant" when overwhelming
evidence to the contrary exists. which means we can't just state our ideals
(inclusive, equitable, etc) without *also* explaining why our committer
base does not reflect this
this is what I mean when I say
s good. Doing away with it entirely feels like
> giving up on it and admitting defeat.
>
> Dinesh
>
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> >
> > I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
> > entirely
> >
I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
entirely
On Fri 22. Mar 2019 at 21:28, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Rich Bowen wrote:
> > On 3/22/19 3:03 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > It would be very important to come up with a replacemen
agreed re "do-ocracy"
1) like Patricia points out, like "meritocracy", it presupposes our past
and future ability implement such a system
2) even if we *have* been successful at implementing such a system, is that
really enough for us, from an ideological perspective? are we not concerned
with wh
sorry for the double post...
I just noticed, from the blog post I linked, that GitHub replaced their
"meritocracy" slogan with:
"In collaboration we trust."
I like that!
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:55, Naomi Slater wrote:
> "Word origins are just that - origins.
"Word origins are just that - origins. What matters is the current
meaning, not where they originated. You can play that kind of game with
lots of English words, many of which have absurd origin stories."
but it's not just a word origin. that was my point. the moral issues the
satirical novel mora
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 17:04, Rich Bowen wrote:
> As alluded to, I am aware of people in our community who believe that we
> have achieved this goal, and that any inference to the contrary is
> crazy-making. I explicitly disagree with that stance. We have clearly
> *not* achieved this goal, and I
d where I am in the world
> purely by hard work. And frankly, citing Stuart Varney as representative
> of ... well, anything or anyone, is, itself, kind of comic. He's a
> pompous blow-hard with a lengthy history of arrogant remarks about
> unsavory poor people who are not as wonde
t
was, when I read that?”
that outrage certainly mirrors some of the reactions I have witnessed when
I have suggested that structural inequities (and not 100% "merit") have a
role to play in someone's position of power/respect/success in tech
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Nao
this article crossed my news feed today:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
here's a key takeaway:
> [...] in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value,
managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over femal
regarding stats from other orgs, there's some research in this piece I did
for MVC:
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis
graph here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/mvc-wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/slater_chart.png
the data I found suggested an average figure of
t; writing software, that is not very visible, no glory and doing so
> without
> >> pay... That women are underrepresented in CS is not ASF's fault, hope
> you
> >> can agree with that, and then it could be that there is a amplification
> >> effect in ASF and possib
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 at 17:18 Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> My claim is that we are not competent to dig in it, and papers that Joan
> pointed towards even states that diversity is not a sure positive (yes, I
> read...)
>
To use gender diversity again as an illustrative example, there are women
on this
> first of all, you make a 'category' that in this case encompasses roughly
half the population. Then you make the strawman that I claim that this huge
category has no skills. Dishonest, at best.
I didn't claim that. I said it was an implication of your line of thought.
How else will you justify f
42 matches
Mail list logo
