Top posting. "you're on the sidelines; the President said so".
None of the quotes you provided were my words, nor do they support the claim that I made that statement. I'm pleased that we agree on Griselda's plan. - Sam Ruby On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 5:23 PM Wade Chandler <wadechand...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:57 PM Wade Chandler <wadechand...@apache.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> And mine was there is a line in this thread attacking the way a lot of very > >> inclusive people work here, and that line is like "your points have no > >> merit, but we'll make changes and drive them, that affect the whole org, > >> while using meritocracy while saying it is bad at lower levels", and in > >> this case it is everyone's concern even if they are not working on the > >> specific thing you are, because it impacts the whole/everyone working on > >> something at Apache, and is also directly related to my point on the > >> possibility to exist for overreach and overreaction considering that. > >> > >> Folks chose to throw around weight with various phrases such as "because > >> the President" and "policing". Where is the plan for what this looks like > >> given these mandates? > > > > Slow down. It is impossible to keep up with the false accusations. > > > > Perhaps it starts with something as simple as: > > >> > >>> Given you previously mentioned companies and performance reviews etc; > >>> I will suggest part of the problem in those contexts are those > >>> reviews are often measuring the wrong things, and not measuring the > >>> drivers of the hierarchy of work in which most workers actually > >>> exist within an organization; they please the street though. > >> > >> To me, this reads as you saying "We're promoting women and minorities > >> just because they look good for our D&I numbers, not because they have > >> the skillsets required." Was that what you really intended to say? > >> If so that's borderline offensive, but as you say, irrelevant to > >> our situation at Apache - so why bring it up? I'm trying to assume > >> good faith on your part, but finding it hard to do so. > > Which was actually in response to a statement how reviews contradict > promotions and upward mobility. I was suggesting the reviews themselves are > often out of touch with the managers at the ground level, and often those > people are directly responsible for anything bigger than cost of living > adjustments to compensation and not the reviews. I certainly wasn’t saying > anything negative about women and minorities, but OK. > > Or, what I was specifically responding to for which you replied; I was > directly accused for appropriating the language of the marginalized as a way > to personally negatively reflect on me after I had tried to move on from the > thread for some time. > > > > From your previous email " you're on the sidelines; the President said > > so"... to which I can only respond [citation needed]. > > > > From this thread: some of what I’m referencing: > > In relation to low-level projects and policing > > >> Not only do the outbound communication need to improve, but more > >> importantly the oversight and policing needs to improve. > > and > > >> This means that the policies can be created at Foundation level, and can be > >> policed (by the Board, and/or through delegation by a specific office). If > >> the > >> highest body of the Foundation established a strict(er) policy on 'merit > >> awarding’ > >> and/or 'Diversity & Inclusion' then it is obliged, with regards to these > >> policies, to: > > > President and the Board > > >> I have long since stopped caring about *persuading* our skeptic members > >> about the need to do this work. They're not going to help anyways, why > >> bother? > >> And we already have the full support of the President and the Board on > >> this, > >> so they can't interfere in any meaningful way. > > > Don’t people who are not skeptics, but are concerned about what that work is > have some right to ask about it? Is it interfering to ask for the information > to be enumerated in a place to make it clear and concise or otherwise be > pointed to where it has already happened? I’m assuming this work will have > impacts on everyone at Apache, not just those “doing that work” or a > sub-project. > > >> Again as Rich says, there's explicit approval to proceed with a D&I > >> initiative already, from both the Board and the President. People like > >> Naomi and I have been through the "prove it to me" request many times > >> over, and I'm tired of responding to this particular email. > > > >> TL;DR: It's obvious no one is going to convince you that anything needs > >> to be done. But thankfully, we can move ahead without your personal > >> approval. Please let us get on with our work rather than just heckling > >> from the sidelines. > > > It would be much easier if there were bits in the wiki or some where, and > this was tracked there; we’d all be able to understand what the mandate means > as well as those driving its views on what specifically need to change. It’s > a lot of referencing. > > >> I am sure > >>> we could and can find common ground. Certainly more information > >>> and data would be very useful! > >> > >> > >> in 2014, I was challenged to provide data on members@ and spent a whole > >> evening doing statistical modeling to demonstrate why it's extremely > >> unlikely that the homogeneity of our committee base is due to random chance > >> (I'm honestly still flabbergasted I had to explain this for engineers) > >> > >> my efforts were ignored by everyone who had demanded "proof" > >> > >> we were told we had to "prove" we had a diversity problem before people > >> would accept it was an issue. so in 2016, we did a committer survey > >> > >> it's theee years later you're discounting that data and its implications. > >> in the same thread as dismissing a woman who is telling you directly why > >> women don't contribute (thus counts as data) > >> > >> I hope you will forgive me for believing that requests for more data are > >> disingenuous > > > Interesting; but one isn’t asking the information be in a long email thread > which gets lost, and is probably half the problem with this specific item. > Again, like I’ve asked about today multiple times. I didn’t see their > specific exchange. > > > > If you want to react to an actual plan, I welcome your feedback on the > > following: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a5e7e30fad3e89547db554cf64b10d33611d4401356590bddf94b918@%3Cdev.community.apache.org%3E > > > > I think that is a great plan. > > > If you want to build your own plan to, feel free to do so. At the > > present time I can say that the link above is a plan that I can > > support. It doesn't start out with (or even mention) policing. It > > describes a plan that involves gathering data, analyzing results, and > > making recommendations. > > Agreed. > > > Nor does saying that I support and can see > > the ASF approving such a plan mean that we aren't capable of > > evaluating and supporting other plans. > > > > Agreed. > > > If you continue to want to attack proposals that absolutely nobody has > > made, I encourage you to do so elsewhere. > > Clearly somebody made statements referencing the bits I suggested; there they > are in CNP, and no other data than that for one to draw on for extra meaning. > > Regardless, the linked plan you gave sounds great, and thanks to Griselda for > that awesomeness and plan. > > Thanks, > > Wade > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
