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 the flaming components in people's faces, and attack the component which has been sold and attracted many good inclusive people over the years; the subject here.
Fact is folks are contributing a lot, and either you intentionally took a good portion of my words out of context, or didn't try. 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. Wade On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 00:52 Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > "Wade Chandler" <wadechand...@apache.org> 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 idea. > > Situations where there have been individuals who were actively working > against inclusion have, in my experience, been dealt with on a need-to- > know basis. And yes, it has happened here at Apache. > > > On another it “can” actively try to > > attract more diversity; intentional positive; not sure I see this at > > Apache. > > 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 sources; I encourage you to > listen to the full recording and read my slides before passing > judgement. > > This effort can be engaged on a project-by-project basis, by the way. > It doesn't need consent from people on this list. > > > On another it “can” try to attract people who contribute, > > and within that not have a bias related to any attribute of a person > > other than they contribute; I see a lot of this at Apache; not bad > > (evil), also good, not intentionally attracting diversity, but the > > part that should be kept in mind is it is also good; not seeing this > > as something to change as something that can be complemented. > > And it's obvious to me, at least, that just doing this has been > insufficient. We need to cast our net wider. Rich said earlier in this > thread: > > > Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE MONTH, there is at least one (and usually > > several) response to a project report, encouraging them to more actively > > pursue new committers, lower their bar to entry, actively mentor new > > contributors, and so on. > > So yes, there is clearly a stated desire to improve, from the board > level down. > > > Given you previously mentioned companies and performance reviews etc; > > I will suggest part of the problem in those contexts are those > > reviews are often measuring the wrong things, and not measuring the > > drivers of the hierarchy of work in which most workers actually > > exist within an organization; they please the street though. > > To me, this reads as you saying "We're promoting women and minorities > just because they look good for our D&I numbers, not because they have > the skillsets required." Was that what you really intended to say? > If so that's borderline offensive, but as you say, irrelevant to > our situation at Apache - so why bring it up? I'm trying to assume > good faith on your part, but finding it hard to do so. > > > Were > > they measuring the right things, and this odd dichotomy removed, and > > the right signaling known to all, i.e. good communication of the > > things that really matter, it would probably help a lot. I don’t > > think this can be applied to Apache contributors though; it is > > really clear the thing that matters; software that works and those > > making that happen within a legal framework; very different than a > > company and employee relationship and the motivators for it. > > On the contrary - we say "Community Over Code" is a core guiding > principle of the ASF. So if that's the real thing that matters to us, > and we state it loud and clear on our website, why aren't we deciding > who gets "merit" based on that clearly and loudly, just as much as > we care about code contributions? > > > Marginalized has a very specific and strong meaning; one of intent. > > Do you intend to use it per that meaning? > > Not to speak for Naomi, but: > > It does not have that. Relegation to the margins may be transitive > in nature, but it can be inadvertent. Learning to stop talking and > let others who may not talk as often is an important skill in meetings, > as is asking those who rarely speak to speak up another in encouraging > good team development. To find yourself edged out, unheard or ignored > is a common enough situation for people "at the margins." It doesn't > necessarily refer to active maliciousness on the part of the > marginaliser (though it can). > > I'm not going to go into detail, but reading up on the topic of > inherent biases in cultural norms might provide some background here. > > > If not, then what should be the > > measure of reward for one to become a “committer” to a code base? It > > is something that needs care and feeding, and in many cases, has > > many dependencies throughout the world, and that’s a big deal. > > Again, not all contributions are code, and not everyone who gains merit > does so through writing it. Some really great people here at Apache > don't write code, have tons of merit, and just happen to be women and > minorities. Your choice of words above indicates you wouldn't consider > these people to be worthy of consideration - was *that* intentional? > > > Similar to a company, requiring care and feeding, which regardless of > > anything else, would not hire someone with the wrong skillset nor > > record of the right skillset be it experience or a degree. > > Short story time: > > I am extremely proud of hiring someone with a G.E.D. into a position > that initially stated it required a masters' degree, to replace someone > who had one. He did a better job than the ex-M.S. holder. It was his > first job in tech. He's gone on to become a very skilled QA engineer > at Cisco. > > If we'd just looked at his resume, he'd never be hired. But he turned > out to pass through his probationary 3 months with flying colours, and > greatly helped our group beyond anyone's expectations. > > Sometimes it is worth looking past the "skillset" on paper. The proof, > as they say, is in the pudding. And it took some faith on our company's > part to do so provisionally. It paid off for us. > > Inviting people into ASF projects who might not give us a second look > otherwise could bring with them some pleasant surprises. Why not try? > > > It seems clear Apache has this same principal, > > Not at all. Anyone can come in and help in a useful way. Being able > to speak a language well means you can help with documentation and > website copy. Graphic artists - hell, someone who's really good with > Inkscape or Illustrator who doesn't even have a GED - could be a HUGE > asset to many, many groups within Apache by being a logo and visual > designer. > > The bar is set by each project as to what they need, yes, but I think > we have characteristically ignored many project needs that can be > filled by more diverse skillsets. (Yes, that doesn't mean diversity of > race, gender or sexuality.) Thankfully we have an initiative underway > on that, and I'm super glad it's taken flight (though I don't have > the time to dig into that one myself.) > > > Apache vets more thoroughly by way of actual contributions versus > > credentials; in this context I’ve not seen abuse of individuals > > based on anything other than their commitments to a given code base. > > I have. So? > > Jumping ahead: > > > In my anecdotes, most folks who come to work on a piece of OSS don't > > come for much of my perception of your reasoning; they come because > > they need the software and contribute to it as an artifact of use > > and vested interest or because it is something to do, and they > > stumbled onto it; I’ve never personally met any whose priority was > > beyond this, but I’m sure there are cases. > > I've seen people come to OSS: > > * to be a big fish in a small pond > (so they can throw their weight around and feel important) > * to make a political statement > * to crush their rivals in business by "levelling the playing field" > * just to harass other people, including other contributors > * to encode a political manifesto into software, for better or worse > * to build a resume via their non-code contributions to something > they really don't care or need about themselves > * because their employer paid them to do so, despite them not wanting > to do so > > and that's just off of the top of my head. > > Again as Rich says, there's explicit approval to proceed with a D&I > initiative already, from both the Board and the President. People like > Naomi and I have been through the "prove it to me" request many times > over, and I'm tired of responding to this particular email. > > TL;DR: It's obvious no one is going to convince you that anything needs > to be done. But thankfully, we can move ahead without your personal > approval. Please let us get on with our work rather than just heckling > from the sidelines. > > -Joan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
