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.
> >
> 
> One area I always wonder about is English as a second language, does it
> hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so and would like
> to find solutions for further inclusion.
> 
> Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify areas where
> underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked with)
who would fall into that category of English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with some innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting those with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained use. Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field somewhat by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating the use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some bar in terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

> Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less than 30 responses
> to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we may not get
> meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig into the
> Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the goal is "find
> ways to reach underrepresented groups."
> Thanks,
> Anne
> 
> 
> >
> > 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
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foundation mailing list
> > Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Anne Gentle
> Rackspace
> Principal Engineer
> www.justwriteclick.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>