Open Stack

How about to add question(s) to know who are doing the survey – ATC? PTL? TC? Dev? Ops? or any multiple roles of the above?

--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland at aptira.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 7:41 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

The intent behind requesting data from all of the small groups (Foundation staff, TC, Board) is to provide a view of the diversity of those groups compared to the community at large.

It is common for an organisation to demonstrate their progress in fostering inclusion/diversity, or lack thereof, by publishing these numbers. Essentially this demonstrates the extent to which glass ceilings exist in an organisation.

Similarly, if we survey our populations then we will have data to determine what the high priority areas are. Certainly, for the purposes of analysing the data on the general community, we will need to separate the data on small groups from the random samples.

I am intriuged by the idea of cross matching engagement levels with diversity data. That is an excellent idea! I will add a "please rate your level of engagement with or participation with the OpenStack community" type question. It will be fascinating to see if there are correlations.

Thanks!

Roland.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 at 17:35 Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com<mailto:eglynn at redhat.com>> wrote:


> 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

Well, even offering an incentive at a later stage will compromise the
data somewhat (i.e. undo the effect of the initial randomization).

> In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

In that case, I would recommend adding some questions to gauge their
level of active involvement in the community, so that we can slice and
dice the data accordingly.

e.g. it would be good to be able to hone in on the ATC subgroup of the
respondents, or the group working fulltime in the community in any capacity,
or the group working fulltime on OpenStack in more internally-facing roles
within their organization (e.g. operations, engineering/program management,
partner activity, marketing etc.)

> 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 good to be able to collate those data from each of sub-
groupings alongside the totals.

> It would be great if we could also request
> all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to
> participate.

I would advise against individually inviting any specific groups such
as PTLs, TC, board members and other community "nomenklatura", as again
that would simply serve to undo the randomization.

If the sample size is large enough and selected completely at random
it's likely to include some PTLs and/or TC members anyway. But including
*all* of the OpenStack nomenklatura in the sample would distort the data.

> I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth
> surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Fair enough, but I would strongly recommend that the survey is designed in
such a way to make it easy to drill down into the data specifically for the
more active sub-groups such as ATCs, or those involved in OpenStack fulltime
in some other capacity.

I, for one, wouldn't be that interested in building diversity among folks
who are only involved to the extent of voting in the board election every
year. Great if that larger group is diverse, but TBH it wouldn't be the
priority IMO.

So it would be good to know where our baseline is specifically with regard
to the more active sub-groups with the foundation membership.

Cheers,
Eoghan

> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20150910/054aebc0/attachment-0001.html>