+1000 thank you so much for your email Sage!! I agree with every aspect of it. and want to stress that I also agree with you that the plan you have proposed adequately addresses our concerns about maintaining the ASF's neutrality
I haven't seen any convincing counter-arguments "that's simply not how we do things", "trust the founding fathers" (wtf), and vague allusions to other counter-arguments that fail to actually materialize are a lot less convincing than I think some people realize On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 19:58, Sage Sharp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 6:43 PM Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Patricia, I think your point really illustrates what I am trying > to > > say. > > > > The ASF doesn't pay *anyone* to work on our software. There is no > > discrimination in that. Sure one can argue it creates less opportunity > than > > paying for a few individuals, but that's not the same as discrimination. > > > > Discrimination doesn't have to come in the form of blatant racism or > sexism. Systemic discrimination comes from a long series of missed > opportunities. One person in a long series of people says, "I don't want to > change this behavior/policy that negatively impacts people from > marginalized groups in tech." > > For example, take hiring discrimination. > > Behavior can contribute to systemic hiring discrimination. One recruiter > disregards a person of color's resume because it doesn't have a GitHub > profile link. Another recruiter notices a Black person's listed hobbies > signal they're from a lower socio-economic class and doesn't pass it on. A > hiring manager can't understand someone's African-American vernacular > accent in a phone interview, so they're not given an on-site interview. > > Policies can contribute to systemic hiring discrimination. A company has a > policy of not paying for interview travel and not allowing virtual > interviews. People of color are less likely to be able to afford to fly > on-site for an interview. People mobility disabilities may not be able to > afford to fly for a job interview because the airline has a policy that > they must buy a companion fare to have someone help them with their > wheelchair. Companies have a policy that requires interviewees to do white > board coding. Students from majority white universities succeed because > they're offered college classes on how to ace the white board portion of > the interview, while people of color have their white board coding session > rated poorly. > > These small behaviors and polices add up to systemic discrimination. > > https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/systemic/ > > "Systemic discrimination involves a pattern or practice, policy, or class > case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, > profession, company or geographic area." > > What you see as a "lack of opportunity" I see as a symptom of systemic > discrimination. > > I also find it interesting that the ASF board recognizes the impact of lost > opportunity in a selective way. For example, take this explanation of the > ASF board's exceptions to paying community members: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b6f7f723e08a3e643c0629ce08368bf7c4ee2824769abd3fc2eae319@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > "Travel Assistance Committee (general fund) - here we paid for travel and > expenses for attendance at events. No code was expected. Applicants were > not chosen based on their general profile rather than activity in projects. > > Travel Assistance Committee (directed fund for a minority group) - as above > with some provisions to ensure nobody outside the minority group lost a > spot because of the addition of minority group applicants" > > In creating the Travel Assistance fund for minority groups, the ASF board's > stipulation was that "nobody outside the minority group should lose a spot > because of the additional of minority group applicants". They recognized > that missing a conference was a loss of opportunity for community members > to network, to find a job, to promote their work. So a policy was put in > place in order to protect the opportunities for the majority demographic in > ASF communities. > > The thread has good examples of why the ASF policy of not paying for code > negatively impacts marginalized groups in the ASF community: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ae537465c80e2d61d9ee26092ab789babde63cd429dc62c497b3dab6@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d024e2b8327772901a06c69e7b31df4e04662a01450b8d2390ac1ca1@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > It's not a good look to refuse to discuss an exception to a policy that > negatively impacts marginalized groups as "a loss of opportunity" while > creating polices that protect opportunities for the majority groups in the > ASF community. > > > > The ASF can, and should, do more to help people overcome the > > discrimination that *does* exist in the industry as a whole. > > > > I maintain that the ASF will make close to zero difference to the > industry > > wide problem by taking on a few interns. Sure, having some interns is > > going to be valuable from an educational point of view and will > undoubtedly > > help a few individuals, we should do it in the most friction free way > > possible. Fighting to overturn a working policy in order to enable a > > handful of internships isn't worth the effort or the perceived risk. Work > > around it. > > > > This discussion is more important than Outreachy. This discussion sets the > tone for all discussions about how ASF policies may negatively impact > marginalized groups in free software. Some board members are unwilling to > grant an exception to a discriminatory policy because it may impact vendor > neutrality. Other people have pointed out that there are already exception > to this policy for Google Summer of Code and for paying for website work > (which could include software development). > > That resulting in further discussion of whether the "we don't pay for code" > policy is a core tenant of the ASF community. The discussion then became an > argument over who has seniority and who best understands with the Apache > Way. That does not address the main issue: Will the ASF board be willing to > discuss policies or cultural norms which may negatively impact marginalized > groups in its communities? > > We have a solid proposal in place for how to evaluate which projects to > list in Outreachy that is vendor neutral, and focuses on giving the interns > the best experience possible: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f790fa5bffd7c2aac3fb495593456d55bed940815891511c6d3fd039@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > I've proposed a plan for dealing with the case where there is not enough > funding to accept all interns. This is vendor neutral and focuses on > selecting internships that will be successful. Outreachy organizers will > then evaluate which projects we can afford to fund from the Outreachy > general fund, prioritizing ones that meet that criteria: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/291c99821cecb05e5dedbd3818ac19c73b9584c6795f602928780b14@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E > > With those proposals in place, the discussion has shifted to the policy's > intent. That is not my purview, as I'm not a part of the ASF. I will leave > that up to everyone else to discuss. However, I did want to point out that > policies can be a part of systemic discrimination. I would hope that the > ASF board is willing to review and change/grant exceptions to policies that > are discriminatory. > > Sage Sharp > Outreachy Organizer >
