I'm going to challenge a few things in this email. Before I do I want to make a
very clear statement. I am 100% in support of the need to address our diversity
and inclusion activities. I have been for a very long time. You can find posts
from me on this topic going back a long way. Noirin tried
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
Hi -
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Asking people to put pronoun stickers on badges might seem unnecessary to some
I’m trying to give up on guessing pronouns and attempting to always use “they”
and “them”.
Except for Jim - Him, Jim ;-)
Regards,
Dave
>
>
Well said...
"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". There are
people who feel they cannot or don't need to "be the change". Fine
Not directly a response to the below, but very much related to it.
If you go to a Node.js conference these days, the very first thing you
do is pick up a badge. When you do, they ask you to consider putting
on a sticker containing your preferred pronouns. Shortly thereafter
you realize that the
On 28/03/2019 15:58, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Mark suggested in a posting earlier that there is something called the D&I
> team that could be tasked with gathering advice from domain experts, and
> advise the President/Board on how to improve this situation. But it seems
> (I have done some searchi
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:58, Pierre Smits wrote:
>
> I bow to Naomi for keeping reacting in this thread and not giving in to a
> desire to step out of the discussion...
>
> I find it sad that there are (board) members who keep saying that the
> situation must improve (because there are problems r
I am sorry that this discussion has devolved to ad-hominem attacks
and dispersions of character.
As such, although I agree that we need to address any actionable
items in addressing inclusion and diversity concerns, I'll remove myself
from this thread.
On 3/28/19 11:58 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
I find it sad that there are (board) members who keep saying that the
situation must improve (because there are problems regarding Diversity and
Inclusion), but when it comes to where it needs to improve (in the projects
mostly) they also keep saying (
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 Mar 28, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
>
> 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
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:58 PM Pierre Smits wrote:
> ...they also keep saying (here and other threads also in other fora in
> the past) that there is nothing to be done from the Foundation downwards to
> the projects because 'the projects are independent'
There's a difference between a)
I bow to Naomi for keeping reacting in this thread and not giving in to a
desire to step out of the discussion...
I find it sad that there are (board) members who keep saying that the
situation must improve (because there are problems regarding Diversity and
Inclusion), but when it comes to where
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 Mar 28, 2019, at 8:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>>> If we are actively (or passively) discouraging diversity, then it is
>>> a problem, of course. Are we?
>>>
>>
>> yes. of course we are. ~5% of our committer base are women. 1 single
>> person, that we know of, is Black. compare
El jue., 28 mar. 2019 15:15, Abhishek Chaudhary (JIRA)
escribió:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMDEV-313?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16803967#comment-16803967
> ]
>
> Abhishek Chaudhary commented on COMDEV-313:
>
El jue., 28 mar. 2019 16:18, Jim Jagielski escribió:
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> >
> > 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 m
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
>
> 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
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 3/28/19 10:44 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
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 d
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 3/28/19 10:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
That's under-representation against the global population and not
against the pool of contributors.
I disagree. It is both. This isn't something where we can just say "It
isn't our fault. The problem lies upstream in the process". Yes, there
are issue
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 28/03/2019 14:20, Naomi Slater wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>> How about this. Lets use some of the $ we have in the bank to get some
>> good advice (and potentially ongoing support) from domain experts on
>> what we could do to improve.
>
> good idea. the few people inside our org who we *should
On 28/03/2019 14:00, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:45 AM Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 28/03/2019 13:24, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:59 AM Naomi Slater wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> but in practice, thi
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 3/28/19 8:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM Naomi Slater wrote:
...I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache...
I have just a small comment about this: I t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMDEV-313?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16803967#comment-16803967
]
Abhishek Chaudhary commented on COMDEV-313:
---
Hey [~markt] Can be there some qui
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:45 AM Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> On 28/03/2019 13:24, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:59 AM Naomi Slater wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> but in practice, this isn't true. and our committer demographics
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 13:45, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> On 28/03/2019 13:24, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:59 AM Naomi Slater wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> but in practice, this isn't true. and our committer demographics
>
On 28/03/2019 13:24, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:59 AM Naomi Slater wrote:
>>
>> 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 definit
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?
If we are actively (or passively) discouraging diversity, then it is
a problem, of course. Are we?
The issue, for me at leas
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:59 AM Naomi Slater wrote:
>
> 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 i
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
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM Naomi Slater wrote:
> ...I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
> examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache...
I have just a small comment about this: I think we use "meritocracy"
to mean that someone who
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 8:00 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Becaus
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
FWIW, I still use the term meritocracy and, in fact, did so at the
ApacheCon roadshow in DC this week. I address up front that for
some people, "meritocracy" is a bad word, and I say I disagree.
I then say something like the below:
"Merit has nothing to do with gender, or race, or religion,
38 matches
Mail list logo
