> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:21 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:33 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> 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 educate them that there actually is a problem.
>
> My experience, like Ross's is that doing such rarely ends well. But
> I'll give it a try. Let's see how it goes.
>
> Imagine you are one of a few women in a room full of men. You are
> uncertain as to whether you belong or are welcome. A highly respected
> and accomplished man makes the following statement:
>
> "Merit has nothing to do with gender, or race, or religion,
> or what genitalia one has or is attracted to. If your idea
> of what constitutes merit is based on any of these, then
> that's a f'ed up definition of merit. That means it's a
> problem w/ how merit is defined, and not meritocracy per se."
>
> For clarity: this is not a question as to whether the statement is
> correct or whether the intent is correct. This is a question as to
> whether you feel that would make this hypothetical woman feel more
> welcome or less welcome.
>
More welcome. As confirmed by women at the event I asked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
