Open Stack

We typically use surveymonkey.com does that work for you Shane?




On September 7, 2015 7:09:01 PM "Wang, Shane" <shane.wang at intel.com> wrote:

> Agree on the statement that our charter is much broader than ATC.
> Roland, How many participants are you targeting in the sample? BTW: pleases 
> consider not to use google doc as the tool for the survey, because that is 
> blocked here.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Shane
> From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland at aptira.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:14 AM
> To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup 
> APAC 2015-08-27
>
>
> My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we 
> would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking 
> the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as 
> you say
>
> In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.
>
> We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them 
> obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe 
> there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request 
> all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to participate.
>
> I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth 
> surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.
>
> Roland
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn 
> <eglynn at redhat.com<mailto:eglynn at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>> Mate, you should come to the meetings.
>
> TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(
>
> A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...
>
> Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.
>
> I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
> incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.
>
> Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
> randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
> relying on reactions to an incentive.
>
> Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
> is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
> diversity?
>
> I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
> to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).
>
> Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
> anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
> involvement in the community.
>
> Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
> To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
> undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
> such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
> ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.
>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>
>> Roland
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn 
>> <eglynn at redhat.com<mailto:eglynn at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:tamara.johnston at emc.com>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> From: Roland Chan <roland at aptira.com<mailto:roland at aptira.com>>
>> > > > > > > >> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
>> > > > > > > >> To: Stefano Maffulli 
>> <stefano at openstack.org<mailto:stefano at openstack.org>>, "
>> > > > > > > >> 
>> foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:foundation at lists.openstack.org>" <
>> > foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > > > Foundation mailing list
>> > > > > > > > 
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>> > > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Anne Gentle
>> > > > > > > Rackspace
>> > > > > > > Principal Engineer
>> > > > > > > www.justwriteclick.com<http://www.justwriteclick.com>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > > Foundation mailing list
>> > > > > > > 
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>> > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > Foundation mailing list
>> > > > > Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation at lists.openstack.org>
>> > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Foundation mailing list
>> > > > Foundation at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20150907/613383e2/attachment-0001.html>