Hi Katherine and welcome to SPI,
I understand your frustration of not being able to join. I was there
myself a few years ago, although the issue was silent, so it took a
while to detect it. There is still a ticket which should help to ease
detection of these situations:
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-September/003545.html
Thank you for being kind enough to report the issue. I am glad it could
be solved.
I'm sorry, my statement was unclear at best. What I meant to say is that
I do not consider it a problem if the number of male SPI members is
different from the number of female members. I consider diversity and
inclusiveness as 2 very different things. I do not see it as a problem
per se that diversity is lower than it could be, but I would consider it
a problem if inclusiveness is lower than it can be. And I would see it
as a problem if the average power in SPI of a group X was different from
the average power in SPI of a group Y, if the only difference between
their members was gender.
So to go back to advisors, I don't see it as a problem per se if 2
associated projects have different numbers of advisors. What I would
consider problematic is if 2 equally important associated projects,
having each proposed an equal number of equally competent and acceptable
candidates, would end up with a different number of SPI advisors.
Le 2019-12-10 à 09:02, Katherine Mcmillan a écrit :
Hello all,
I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment on this - I have not been able to
join SPI formally as the "Apply" link under Membership on the website
it broken.
I agree with rescinding the positions of SPI Board Advisors. It's
problematic to allow these (all male) people to continue on in those
positions, when people like myself who are very interested can't even
join SPI as a member. It's offensive, and as Martin pointed out,
doesn't reflect reality. It's very misleading with regards to their
role in/with SPI. Why would they continue to have these titles if
they're not interested/not doing anything special? I would infer that
advisors for a project are consulted, and if they were not, I would
question the entire communications and governance of the project
(which I am now doing). I would recommend SPI brings on
productive/interested advisors if they will continue recognizing these
positions/titles, and to actually consult the advisors. If the
current advisors want to play an active role in consultation, then
they could keep their title/role. I would like to put my name forward
as the Diversity and Inclusion Advisor, if advisors will remain.
With regards to Filipus's comment, "Nor would I consider gender
imbalance as a problem per se": Gender imbalance is a huge problem in
SPI, please stop denying that this is a massive, glaring problem, and
looks terrible for SPI's current optics in terms of inclusiveness and
diversity. Again, as an outsider (who also happens to be female) I
can honestly say that SPI looks, from the outside, to be a
cis-white-middle-aged-male-debian "Boys' club". Gender imbalance is
absolutely a problem per se, as is the lack of other types of diversity.
Sincerely,
Katie McMillan
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:00 AM <spi-general-requ...@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general-requ...@lists.spi-inc.org>> wrote:
Send Spi-general mailing list submissions to
spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org <mailto:spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
spi-general-requ...@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general-requ...@lists.spi-inc.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at
spi-general-ow...@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general-ow...@lists.spi-inc.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Spi-general digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors (Martin Michlmayr)
2. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors (Luca Filipozzi)
3. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors (Bdale Garbee)
4. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors (Martin Michlmayr)
5. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors (Filipus Klutiero)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:36:06 +0200
From: Martin Michlmayr <t...@cyrius.com <mailto:t...@cyrius.com>>
To: Tim Potter <t...@frungy.org <mailto:t...@frungy.org>>
Cc: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors
Message-ID: <20191209203606.ga29...@jirafa.cyrius.com
<mailto:20191209203606.ga29...@jirafa.cyrius.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
* Tim Potter <t...@frungy.org <mailto:t...@frungy.org>>
[2019-12-09 20:17]:
> Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI
board was
> concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board
Advisors
> served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long
time. It is
> proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI
Board Advisors.
I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
advisors).
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:49:48 +0000
From: Luca Filipozzi <lfili...@spi-inc.org
<mailto:lfili...@spi-inc.org>>
To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors
Message-ID: <20191209224948.menxx5kgkkwrt...@snafu.emyr.net
<mailto:20191209224948.menxx5kgkkwrt...@snafu.emyr.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 10:36:06PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Tim Potter <t...@frungy.org <mailto:t...@frungy.org>>
[2019-12-09 20:17]:
> > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI
board was
> > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago
Board Advisors
> > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long
time. It is
> > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI
Board Advisors.
>
> I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
> i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
> that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
> invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
> advisors).
That plus:
- (1) we don't actually reach out to the advisors for input (as far as
I've seen since I was elected a few years ago)
- (2) if we want input from someone, we can just ask them without
appointing them as an advisor
--
Luca Filipozzi
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:59:07 -0700
From: Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com <mailto:bd...@gag.com>>
To: Tim Potter <t...@frungy.org <mailto:t...@frungy.org>>,
spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org <mailto:spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors
Message-ID: <87blshyukk....@gag.com <mailto:87blshyukk....@gag.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tim Potter <t...@frungy.org <mailto:t...@frungy.org>> writes:
> Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI
board was
> concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board
Advisors
> served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long
time. It is
> proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board
> Advisors.
It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
Bdale
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20191209/69639f1f/attachment-0001.pgp>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 01:19:03 +0200
From: Martin Michlmayr <t...@cyrius.com <mailto:t...@cyrius.com>>
To: Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com <mailto:bd...@gag.com>>
Cc: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>, Tim Potter
<t...@frungy.org <mailto:t...@frungy.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors
Message-ID: <20191209231903.gb29...@jirafa.cyrius.com
<mailto:20191209231903.gb29...@jirafa.cyrius.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
* Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com <mailto:bd...@gag.com>> [2019-12-09
15:59]:
> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution
instead of
> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
Make sure reality is reflected.
The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that. It also creates
more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
an advisor?)
(For the record, I'm not on the board and can't speak for SPI. But I
brought this up when I was on the board and had the action item to
write a resolution, which unfortunately I never did.)
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:12:04 -0500
From: Filipus Klutiero <chea...@gmail.com <mailto:chea...@gmail.com>>
To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
<mailto:spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
advisors
Message-ID: <f2696ab9-4131-e1a3-ad1f-5851abf7a...@gmail.com
<mailto:f2696ab9-4131-e1a3-ad1f-5851abf7a...@gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi,
Le 2019-12-09 ? 18:19, Martin Michlmayr a ?crit?:
> * Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com <mailto:bd...@gag.com>>
[2019-12-09 15:59]:
>> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution
instead of
>> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from
existing
>> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
> Make sure reality is reflected.
>
> The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been
consulted
> in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that.
I find it quite natural in a mostly open project like this one that
advisors are not explicitly consulted. I would not infer from a
presence
in such an SPI advisor list that a person is explicitly consulted.
> It also creates
> more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader
always
> an advisor?)
I do not see balance between projects (whatever that means) as a
goal.
Nor would I consider gender imbalance as a problem per se. To discuss
genders, the problem I could see is a lack of feminine presence.
But I
expelling productive males would be a costly solution to that, if
it can
be one.
I never heard about advisor creating any kind of imbalance (though I
must say I was also unaware of their existence).
That being said, I have no strong opinion on this, though if we don't
publish a list of current advisors, as seems to be the case, I would
tend to support abolition.
>
> [...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org <mailto:Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org>
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
End of Spi-general Digest, Vol 159, Issue 2
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
--
Philippe Cloutier
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
