Open Stack

> Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.
 
> Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity WG,
> hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is broad
> consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

> Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should" matter. The
> whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes that
> may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate, and
> analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

> Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that way and
> it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
> employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

> Roland
> 
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > > > > 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
> > >
> > > Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?  Something
> > > like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
> > > primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"
> >
> > Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
> > themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.
> >
> > Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
> > draft survey with the new question about educational attainment, I'm
> > thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics (that
> > shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better in
> > building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of malleable
> > characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
> > (that do, and arguably should, matter).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Eoghan
> >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>