[OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27
aplimpton at gmail.com
Thu Sep 3 14:39:12 UTC 2015
>>Citizenship isn't necessarily a good indicator either, it's relatively
easy to change and it's quite common >>to do so. I suppose we could go for
"citizenship at birth" and "current location".
Indicator of what? If we know what metric is trying to be captured here it
would be easier to evaluate the effectiveness of the questions.
>>My thinking was that "ex-patriate" birth is far rarer than emigration for
employment reasons, especially >>inbound to the US.
Without any research I would expect that to be true. However the questions
should allow people to answer accurately, even if they are in the minority,
so that we have the best possible data set to work from.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Roland Chan <roland at aptira.com> wrote:
> 1) I'm not sure what the "country you were born in" and "country where you
>> reside" are meant to capture. If it's simply current physical location,
>> then only the second one is needed. If these are meant to capture
>> nationality then a different wording is needed. If I were born while my
>> parents were abroad or if they emigrated when I was young my nationality
>> won't match my birth country. Same for if I'm currently living outside the
>> country where I claim citizenship (or countries).
> Citizenship isn't necessarily a good indicator either, it's relatively
> easy to change and it's quite common to do so. I suppose we could go for
> "citizenship at birth" and "current location".
>> 2) The age categories should be adjusted to provide greater granularity
>> for the main age range we anticipate the community falls into. Right now
>> there is 0-5, 6-10, 11-40 and 40+ and the first two are unlikely to be
>> used. I would like to suggest this set:
>> Under 12
>> 75 or older
> Yeah, the brackets supplied were just placeholders.
>> 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?
> A free text entry field for feedback on issues encountered is easily
> added. I would say that we may be approaching the point at which we will
> start to impact on the rate, so wouldn't want to add too much more.
> We will also require significant more effort to review the verbatim
> response, probably more we could expect from the currently active people in
> the WG. That shouldn't block us trying though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Foundation