Open Stack

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases that were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat. There are now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data (country, age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy protection, the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how the survey should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of the population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't ask, haven't got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can only discuss via
email. We're running a little behind the original schedule, but I hope to
be able to engage the Foundation to commence the process of executing the
survey by the end of next week.

Cheers,

Roland


On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <Tamara.Johnston at emc.com>
wrote:

> The Diversity WG is actively working on many things, including moving
> forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes analyzing what, where
> and how we’re currently collecting this information, determining where to
> store this information, defining how to enable the core team to analyze and
> report on this data, so on and so forth.
>
> I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past, which was to
> provide an open text field (and/or option to select “prefer not to say”)
> that enables a community member to, if they so choose, share their
> identity.  While we’re trying to better understand the makeup of our
> community we cannot limit the options they can choose from or ask what will
> likely be perceived as personal questions (do you identify as a gender
> minority).  We can either choose to use an open text field / prefer not to
> say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has taken where they
> list 50+ identities but still have an open text field.  I suggest we stick
> with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will enable our community
> members to decide if they want to share their sexual identity and they’re
> not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.
>
> Regards,
>
> *Tamara Johnston*  |  Cloud Portfolio  |  EMC Global Services  |  (C)
> 1-510-398-9114  |  (E) tamara.johnston at emc.com
>
>
> From: Roland Chan <roland at aptira.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
> To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>, "
> foundation at lists.openstack.org" <foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup
> APAC 2015-08-27
>
> The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on the Diversity
> WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my focus.
>
> Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every question is
> optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro where we address
> this and other privacy related issues.
>
> Roland
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:
>> > I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but it deals with how
>> > the University of California asks the gender question and also includes
>> > sexual orientation.
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/
>> >
>> > We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a possible guideline.
>>
>> At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations started asking
>> its members to specify their gender. The intention was to start
>> measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve it. Since the
>> gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots of acronyms and
>> constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary genders. We decided,
>> after long debate and research, to use an open text form to specify
>> gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other system we found,
>> including the one from UC above, had criticism because the debate even
>> among scholars is not set.
>>
>> You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the Summit for
>> example asks gender offering 4 options:
>>
>> - male
>> - female
>> - let me tell you
>>    > open form
>>
>> (I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option "prefer not to
>> say", which I think may be useful to have even if the response is itself
>> optional)
>>
>> Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender from the members
>> database?
>>
>> /stef
>>
>> [1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog
>>
>> http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20150902/28791301/attachment.html>