On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 3:51 AM Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also like that analogy and I think it matches what we are trying to do. > We are trying to do all we can to allow for equitable opportunity for all. > We need to know what "blockers" there are and what we can do about them. I > have no doubt that the Outreachy effort will help with that. > The concern I have is ensuring there is a realistic understanding of what > equitable opportunity means, and how to implement them, especially as it > impacts the concept of merit here at the ASF. A realistic understanding of what equitable opportunity means would come not from email threads at the ASF but from experts in that issue (we have people with varying degrees of expertise, for sure, but collectively we are not an expert org on this). So to the extent that I want to learn from those who are better versed in this knowledge, I share your concern. It is a good idea to gather readings like these and also confer with experts on specifics when we have some. If we do that for a few years or decades, then we might become the ones that can help others with our perspective and experience. Because it is never too early to remind ourselves of some basic tenets, one > core idea of the Apache Way and our do-ocracy is that merit (or reward) is > dependent upon what you do, not who you are. As such, we should always keep > in the back of our minds that such solutions as "you are from an > under-represented group and therefore you don't need to earn that much > merit" or, conversely, "you are someone with privilege and therefore needs > to do a lot more to earn the same amount of merit" will assuredly not stand > at the ASF. > No, I am not worried about that happening, but just wanted to make sure > that this aspect of the Apache Way was known and acknowledged. > I don't believe this has ever been proposed nor even a remote possibility. This is about the effort _we_ put in. I don't share the perspective that equity is something allowed by removing blockers. Equity, or lack thereof, is designed and built and maintained. Like choosing the color of a T-shirt, there is no such thing as neutral or default. This is another "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" realm of life. Consciously or not, *_*we_ recruit new people and new projects to ASF. We are not (just) the cool stuff on the other side of the fence. We are the fence designers and the fence itself (ditto stadium). And we can choose to try to be the boxes, or at least try to notice where they could make things better. We choose that is where we want to put our thoughts and effort. That's where The Apache Way comes in - not everyone will want to put their selves into this and that is fine. Don't subscribe to dev@diversity. If you do want to put your effort into this, join dev@diversity and help out. If you don't think other people should be doing that work... the Apache Way probably has something about that. And the final reminder is understanding that, at the end of the day, not > everyone will want to look over the fence. And that's OK. That is not a > failure. Some people may simply not be interested in watching whatever is > going on over there, no matter how easy it is we make it for them to do so. > Certainly true. This is also not really a problem we face nor one we are trying to solve. Kenn > Cheers! > > On 2019/07/17 17:03:55, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 7/17/19 10:52 AM, Michael Mior wrote: > > > I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this > > > article that goes a little deeper. > > > > > > > http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/ > > > > Yeah, that's a cool extension to the conversation. > > > > Analogies are ... just analogies. They are not reality. Taking them too > > far - their "logical extreme" - always results in problems. > > > > I do like the extension of the analogy in this article, but even then, > > it eventually breaks down. > > > > The fence, for example, protects us from line drives. :) > > > > We strive to bring more people to the table, and make the table bigger, > > and yet we have angry voices complaining that we'll run out of food. One > > of these days, I need to write that "Open Source as pot-luck dinner" > > blog post. The more people we bring to the table, the better dinner will > be. > > > > I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by > > wanting to have more friends come to dinner. > > >
