Open Stack

I made updates to the survey based on feedback in the diversity working group meeting today. I know not everyone was able to attend, so please review and provide any final feedback. We would like to get this wrapped up in the next 24 hours and distributed Monday morning ET at the latest.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=Ju6YvZHHMOt%2bqvcrDczCC7KJ%2fy6YDf4koT9sM2cSqZ2ggvm1U7uH8CErqYzXNfKmlbDNU0gMLsP8ej5qguQyzWmuGzgO%2baI5VynQViJRCdI%3d <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=Ju6YvZHHMOt+qvcrDczCC7KJ/y6YDf4koT9sM2cSqZ2ggvm1U7uH8CErqYzXNfKmlbDNU0gMLsP8ej5qguQyzWmuGzgO+aI5VynQViJRCdI=>

Meeting notes for reference: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-diversity/%23openstack-diversity.2015-10-01.log.html

Thanks,
Lauren

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 9:54 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
> 
> On 30/09/15 02:54, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Sep 29, 2015, at 4:37 AM, Alexis Lee <lxsli at hpe.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Lauren Sell said on Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:47:04PM -0500:
>>>>> Please review and provide any feedback before the Foundation staff helps
>>>>> distribute the survey this week:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/?sm=Ju6YvZHHMOt%2bqvcrDczCC7KJ%2fy6YDf4koT9sM2cSqZ2ggvm1U7uH8CErqYzXNfKmlbDNU0gMLsP8ej5qguQyzWmuGzgO%2baI5VynQViJRCdI%3d
>>>> 
>>>> Q6: Maybe "What racial and/or ethnic group(s) do you belong to?". Bit of
>>>> a mouthful but it's more inclusive of mixed race. It's so hard to phrase
>>>> this question well when the whole concept of race is so simplistic :(
>>> 
>>> Sounds good
>>>> 
>>>> Q7: s/have you/you have/
>>> 
>>> Got it
>>>> 
>>>> Q8: I'd slice by 10 years above 25, just to limit the options, but this
>>>> is OK.
>>> 
>>> I also thought it resulted in a lot of options, but I wasn’t sure if there
>>> was a particular reason the diversity working group wanted more granular
>>> data.
>>>> 
>>>> Q9: this is frequency rather than level of engagement but I'm being
>>>> picky :)
>>> 
>>> I’ll reword the question a bit.
>>>> 
>>>> Q11: Is the word 'speak' prejudicial? Some people find English easier to
>>>> read and write than speak. Maybe "How do you find working in English?
>>>> Difficult / OK / No problem”.
>>> 
>>> Agree
>>> 
>>>> For religion, this seems a good start. There's a clear boundary around
>>>> 5% of world population. I was initially concerned "Chinese folk
>>>> religion" was a bit insulting but (from 2mins further reading on
>>>> Wikipedia) it seems to be the accepted terminology.
>>>> 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions
>>> 
>>> For the sexuality and religion questions, I would personally feel more
>>> comfortable asking something along the lines of "do you feel that your
>>> sexual orientation or religious beliefs have adversely impacted your ability
>>> to participate in our community?” and/or “how have you seen other
>>> communities / organizations successfully create an inclusive environment?” I
>>> think the current questions risk being intrusive or viewed as irrelevant,
>>> and may not result in actionable data.
>> 
>> Yes, that.
>> 
>> Totally agree, especially on the religion question.
>> 
>> Knowing that someone objected to a community event being held too close to
>> Passover (as has happened with PyCon) is useful, actionable information.
>> 
>> Whereas knowing the number of community members who are self-declared
>> adherents of a particular religion is neither useful nor actionable, and
>> IMHO not really any of our business.
> 
> +1
> 
> I've been feeling vexed about the sexuality question for a while - having brought up the "and minority sexuality" wording in the past couple of meetings. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the question were to be changed to something more practical as Lauren and Eoghan have recommended.
> 
>> Cheers,
>> Eoghan
>> 
>>> Using the opportunity to gather some
>>> real feedback about any barriers in the community, as well as actionable
>>> recommendations seems like a more desirable outcome for the working group.
>>> 
>>>> Race is much more difficult. I found the "recommendations" here
>>>> interesting: http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm
>>>> 
>>>>> - I took a stab at adding some reference points for question #9, but
>>>>> am open to feedback here. The 1-10 response seemed pretty subjective
>>>> 
>>>> I agree and I like your options. I'd just add "full-time". This question
>>>> seems to make any ATC-related question redundant, which is good.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alexis (lxsli)
>>>> --
>>>> Nova developer, Hewlett-Packard Limited.
>>>> Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1HN.
>>>> Registered Number: 00690597 England
>>>> VAT number: GB 314 1496 79
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151001/0c8e9806/attachment.html>