Open Stack

> I remember we used to have a lot of information about summit attendees made
> entirely too transparent...
> 
> I did some analytics back then and notices some interesting culture
> differences by geographic lines. I analyzed people based on their first name
> being identified as male, female, or unknown.
> 
> 
> April 2013:
> 
> female attendees: 193
> male attendees: 1493
> unknown attendees: 718
> 
> Prior summit:
> 
> female attendees: 91
> male attendees: 843
> unknown attendees: 380
> 
> I also did a quick check against the old Authors file back then:
> 
> females : 29
> males : 297
> unknowncount : 201
> 
> that put us about 10% female contributorship.
> 
> There are more female developers in teams originating over seas from asia.
> Not sure why that is. But it does raise a point, the OpenStack community is
> a global one. And it's something of a hodge podge of cultures in that
> regard. So the establishment of a unified culture is only going to extend so
> far. That being said, development culture is evolving regardless of the
> contributors background.
> 
> I love the gnome women's outreach program. And I'd love to see that furthered
> on a global level. Getting young women involved and getting their feedback
> as part of a structured introduction to open source development could be
> beneficial to all. We basically need to reach out to as many women from the
> pool of young developers as possible if we intend to create any sort of
> balance.

The OPW (or Outreachy as it's now known) is not in my experience short of
applicants. In order to increase its scope, it's more likely to need sponsor
companies donating the stipend cost, and more mentors to contribute their
time, energy, and ideas.

This is were the foundation could potentially step in and make a difference,
say by encouraging member companies to sponsor internship spots, or by
indemnifying potential mentors (currently mentors must personally indemnify
GNOME).

> I'd love to see more women promoted to core reviewer positions. I think
> that's an area we could make an effort to promote a greater level of parity
> in gender balance. And I think that would be beneficial. The problem is,
> that we vote in core reviewers and providing an avenue for artificial
> weighting there is somewhat perilous in terms of allowing further avenues
> for gaming the system. Not sure how we address that.

Coming from a project where 3 of the last 4 core reviewers nominated were 
female, I'm clearly in favor of inclusivity.

However, IMO it would be a very bad idea to artificially tilt the core
nomination system in order to accelerate a natural process. Instead the key
is to widen of the pool of potential cores who deserve the nomination purely
on merit.

This could be achieved in practical ways via mentoring efforts, the travel
support program, and the likes.

> At NYC Resistor in Brooklyn ( my local hackspace ) we've been pretty serious
> about trying to maintain some level of gender parity, and that's been
> interesting, and difficult. But we're also a group of like 50 people, not
> the several thousand that openstack is. We're also a closed invitational
> group, openstack isn't. What I can say is that what we've learned is that
> cross disciplinary efforts can bring in new folks who otherwise wouldn't
> have considered being involved, and that perspective can be very beneficial.
> Also the way in which technology is used or presented engages different
> audiences. When we decide to create working groups the scope, the purpose,
> the goals... these have an intrinsic impact on who those things reach out to
> and draw into them.
> 
> Better numbers on gender would be nice. If I can find some free time I'll try
> to analyze stackalytics again for gender breakdowns. It would be nice to
> know if anything is actually working.

Note that the OPW themselves were also working on a survey to determine what
proportion of their alumni actually made a career in open source after the
internship concluded.

Active efforts to increase the retention rates (e.g. via career guidance/
networking) would obviously make the desired outcomes more likely to occur.  

Cheers,
Eoghan
 
> Best Regards,
> Matt Joyce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Scott, Debra (PMP, OSPO) <
> debra.scott at hp.com > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Roland, that measurable and meaningful objectives are fundamental,
> however, I think there is an earlier starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of diversity and inclusion rests on the foundation of
> organizational culture. In order to steer a change in culture you first have
> to know where it is and then where you want it to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The OpenStack foundation in particular is a blend of many divergent cultures.
> Every member comes to the foundation with a unique framework of values and
> cultural orientation. Typically, individual value systems are what drive
> behaviors. As we interact with one another we develop a collective cultural
> norm that makes up the overall organizational culture. In such a large
> organization there will be pockets of subcultures where one or more sets of
> cultural features are dominant. Some of these will naturally be more
> inclusive of “different” than others.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is important to assess the current culture as a first step. This
> could be done through a well-crafted professional survey of the membership.
> It would be prudent to engage with experts in the field of organizational
> culture to develop such a survey. There are several existing tools that
> could be employed but an expert would be versed enough to recommend the best
> suited for this type of organization.
> 
> 
> 
> With that knowledge in hand it would be possible to create purposeful
> objectives, with meaningful measurements to steer the culture where the
> board wants it to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> Debra
> 
> 
> 
> *************************
> 
> Debra Scott, PMP 866-814-73304
> 
> 
> 
> First up the board should set some goals. Create a diversity or inclusion
> policy with specific measureable objectives. Then it is possible to have a
> meaningful discussion about what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> One starting point would be to have the foundation regularly or continuously
> report on itself (board and staff at a minimum. Reporting on the membership
> would be great but perhaps only partially achievable). That at least would
> demonstrate transparency and make it fairly clear whether there is a problem
> with the diversity of the foundation. It may also provide a mechanism for
> tracking progress towards the goals, whatever they may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Roland
> 
> 
> 
> OpenStack Community,
> 
> 
> 
> The Board has been discussing how to encourage diversity (all types from
> gender and region to commercial and technical) and also work to improve
> transparency of Board processes.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ideas for us to consider, please feel free to reply to this
> thread.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that we're doing OK (or not) on this, please let us know that
> too.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
> 
> 
> 
> I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
> 
> http://robhirschfeld.com
> 
> twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>