On Thu 28. Mar 2019 at 16:18, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> 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 admit that they are spread out over various > threads and emails. I hate to ask, but could you consolidate them all > into a single doc/email? > no. Maybe one reason is that men find it important to constantly > prove themselves and contributing to open source is a good > way to do that; women are more secure and don't need such > frivolity? why are you challenging one of the few women on this list. I'm telling you why some women don't partipate and... you're dismissing me to speculate (as a man) come on, Jim. this approaches self-parody! > again. I have made a number of suggestions for starting points in this > very > > thread. and have not gone into more detail, because frankly I am > exhausted > > trying to get people to even acknowledge *we have a problem* -- something > > that is exemplified by your not-so-subtle hand-wringing about "teh social > > justice warriors" in your last email > > Your last sentence proved my point... :( "no, it's (SIGNIFICANT) under-representation against the population of software engineering graduates in north america (to use one baseline for comparison)" how does this "prove your point" about social justice warriors coming to get you. it is an incontrovertible statement of fact with significant implications for an organization that depends on volunteer contributions > (if you're looking for reasons women might not want to contribute to > > Apache, perhaps this serves as one example...) > > > > As does this unfortunately. unlike your speculations as to why women don't contribute, I am providing a concrete example. and your response is, essentially, that you think I have an attitude problem how am I meant to take you seriously when you say you care about inclusion when you dismiss the direct evidence women give you about how they are excluded I am sure > we could and can find common ground. Certainly more information > and data would be very useful! in 2014, I was challenged to provide data on members@ and spent a whole evening doing statistical modeling to demonstrate why it's extremely unlikely that the homogeneity of our committee base is due to random chance (I'm honestly still flabbergasted I had to explain this for engineers) my efforts were ignored by everyone who had demanded "proof" we were told we had to "prove" we had a diversity problem before people would accept it was an issue. so in 2016, we did a committer survey it's theee years later you're discounting that data and its implications. in the same thread as dismissing a woman who is telling you directly why women don't contribute (thus counts as data) I hope you will forgive me for believing that requests for more data are disingenuous
