> On Mar 30, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:57 PM Wade Chandler <wadechand...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> And mine was there is a line in this thread attacking the way a lot of very >> inclusive people work here, and that line is like "your points have no >> merit, but we'll make changes and drive them, that affect the whole org, >> while using meritocracy while saying it is bad at lower levels", and in >> this case it is everyone's concern even if they are not working on the >> specific thing you are, because it impacts the whole/everyone working on >> something at Apache, and is also directly related to my point on the >> possibility to exist for overreach and overreaction considering that. >> >> Folks chose to throw around weight with various phrases such as "because >> the President" and "policing". Where is the plan for what this looks like >> given these mandates? > > Slow down. It is impossible to keep up with the false accusations. >
Perhaps it starts with something as simple as: >> >>> 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. Which was actually in response to a statement how reviews contradict promotions and upward mobility. I was suggesting the reviews themselves are often out of touch with the managers at the ground level, and often those people are directly responsible for anything bigger than cost of living adjustments to compensation and not the reviews. I certainly wasn’t saying anything negative about women and minorities, but OK. Or, what I was specifically responding to for which you replied; I was directly accused for appropriating the language of the marginalized as a way to personally negatively reflect on me after I had tried to move on from the thread for some time. > From your previous email " you're on the sidelines; the President said > so"... to which I can only respond [citation needed]. > From this thread: some of what I’m referencing: In relation to low-level projects and policing >> Not only do the outbound communication need to improve, but more >> importantly the oversight and policing needs to improve. and >> This means that the policies can be created at Foundation level, and can be >> policed (by the Board, and/or through delegation by a specific office). If >> the >> highest body of the Foundation established a strict(er) policy on 'merit >> awarding’ >> and/or 'Diversity & Inclusion' then it is obliged, with regards to these >> policies, to: President and the Board >> 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 already have the full support of the President and the Board on this, >> so they can't interfere in any meaningful way. Don’t people who are not skeptics, but are concerned about what that work is have some right to ask about it? Is it interfering to ask for the information to be enumerated in a place to make it clear and concise or otherwise be pointed to where it has already happened? I’m assuming this work will have impacts on everyone at Apache, not just those “doing that work” or a sub-project. >> 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. It would be much easier if there were bits in the wiki or some where, and this was tracked there; we’d all be able to understand what the mandate means as well as those driving its views on what specifically need to change. It’s a lot of referencing. >> 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 Interesting; but one isn’t asking the information be in a long email thread which gets lost, and is probably half the problem with this specific item. Again, like I’ve asked about today multiple times. I didn’t see their specific exchange. > If you want to react to an actual plan, I welcome your feedback on the > following: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a5e7e30fad3e89547db554cf64b10d33611d4401356590bddf94b918@%3Cdev.community.apache.org%3E > I think that is a great plan. > If you want to build your own plan to, feel free to do so. At the > present time I can say that the link above is a plan that I can > support. It doesn't start out with (or even mention) policing. It > describes a plan that involves gathering data, analyzing results, and > making recommendations. Agreed. > Nor does saying that I support and can see > the ASF approving such a plan mean that we aren't capable of > evaluating and supporting other plans. > Agreed. > If you continue to want to attack proposals that absolutely nobody has > made, I encourage you to do so elsewhere. Clearly somebody made statements referencing the bits I suggested; there they are in CNP, and no other data than that for one to draw on for extra meaning. Regardless, the linked plan you gave sounds great, and thanks to Griselda for that awesomeness and plan. Thanks, Wade
