Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
> On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Naomi Slater wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. >> > > simplistic and incorrect > > discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell apart > recognize a distinction; differentiate. "babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion" synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw/recognize a distinction, tell the difference, discern a difference; More 2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. "existing employment policies discriminate against women" synonyms: be biased, show prejudice, be prejudiced; More I contend that when people use the word discrimination, 9 times out of 10, #2 is what is meant/implied/inferred. We might as well argue about the definition of 'meritocracy'... oops. Bad idea. :)
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:17 PM Ross Gardler wrote: > I think the problem is that *I* used the term "positive discrimination". That > has led to an interpretation of someone elses words through a cloudy lens. > Before making assumptions about that other persons intent you should listen > to their words. Have you watched Joan's presentation? I read your words and asked you to elaborate on your intent because it seemed uncharacteristic/controversial, not because of the bearing on anyone else or other unspecified comments. Obviously you have no obligation to explain, but don't misrepresent my question or motives. It's insulting. > I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against anyone. > But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as you > protect my right to help you achieve the > right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of any > discrimination (positive or negative). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
Yes. I'm making accommodations. I plan to take affirmative action (I note that Wikipedia calls out the UK, my native country, as having a different meaning to other places, so perhaps that's why I like the term and you don't). I will comply with the CoC and I will continue to try to assert the CoC on all actions of all participants. But I *will* take affirmative action to help address the inequalities we have. Ross From: Jim Jagielski Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:01 PM To: ComDev Cc: Naomi Slater Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") Making accommodations. IMO, 'affirmative action' should be avoided too much political baggage. > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Let use the term "affirmative action" from now on... > > > From: Naomi Slater > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:50 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on > "meritocracy") > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. >> > > simplistic and incorrect > > discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell apart > > we discriminate when we determine who "has merit". but most people at the > organization consider that form of discrimination a positive and > constructive process > > when you choose who to hire, you are discriminating. between the hirable > candidates and the unhirable candidates > > "positive discrimination", also known as affirmative action, is the process > of discriminating between those who are advantaged and those who are > disadvantaged and then doing something to help the ones who are > disadvantaged > > this is similar in spirit to means testing when it comes to social welfare. > the state discriminates between those who need assistance and those who > don't (how well they do this is another matter entirely) > > I would like to see a well-reasoned argument that explains why identifying > those in need of assistance and then providing that assistance is "by > definition" unjust. it appears we have a *very* different understanding of > what justice is > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
Making accommodations. IMO, 'affirmative action' should be avoided too much political baggage. > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Let use the term "affirmative action" from now on... > > > From: Naomi Slater > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:50 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on > "meritocracy") > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. >> > > simplistic and incorrect > > discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell apart > > we discriminate when we determine who "has merit". but most people at the > organization consider that form of discrimination a positive and > constructive process > > when you choose who to hire, you are discriminating. between the hirable > candidates and the unhirable candidates > > "positive discrimination", also known as affirmative action, is the process > of discriminating between those who are advantaged and those who are > disadvantaged and then doing something to help the ones who are > disadvantaged > > this is similar in spirit to means testing when it comes to social welfare. > the state discriminates between those who need assistance and those who > don't (how well they do this is another matter entirely) > > I would like to see a well-reasoned argument that explains why identifying > those in need of assistance and then providing that assistance is "by > definition" unjust. it appears we have a *very* different understanding of > what justice is > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
Let use the term "affirmative action" from now on... From: Naomi Slater Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:50 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. > simplistic and incorrect discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell apart we discriminate when we determine who "has merit". but most people at the organization consider that form of discrimination a positive and constructive process when you choose who to hire, you are discriminating. between the hirable candidates and the unhirable candidates "positive discrimination", also known as affirmative action, is the process of discriminating between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged and then doing something to help the ones who are disadvantaged this is similar in spirit to means testing when it comes to social welfare. the state discriminates between those who need assistance and those who don't (how well they do this is another matter entirely) I would like to see a well-reasoned argument that explains why identifying those in need of assistance and then providing that assistance is "by definition" unjust. it appears we have a *very* different understanding of what justice is - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. > simplistic and incorrect discrimination, *by definition*, means you discriminate, i.e., tell apart we discriminate when we determine who "has merit". but most people at the organization consider that form of discrimination a positive and constructive process when you choose who to hire, you are discriminating. between the hirable candidates and the unhirable candidates "positive discrimination", also known as affirmative action, is the process of discriminating between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged and then doing something to help the ones who are disadvantaged this is similar in spirit to means testing when it comes to social welfare. the state discriminates between those who need assistance and those who don't (how well they do this is another matter entirely) I would like to see a well-reasoned argument that explains why identifying those in need of assistance and then providing that assistance is "by definition" unjust. it appears we have a *very* different understanding of what justice is
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
> On Mar 30, 2019, at 1:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > >> I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against >> anyone. But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as >> you protect my right to help you achieve the >> right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of >> any discrimination (positive or negative). >> Community over code > > How do you square this with the code of conduct? In my reading, unless > the discrimination threaded some extremely fine needle, it would be in > violation and a good argument could be made for the defense of it > being in violation as well. Discrimination, by definition, is unjust, unwarranted or prejudicial. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
I think the assumption that anyone is intending to violate the code of conduct is a bad one. Lets not make that assumption. I think the problem is that *I* used the term "positive discrimination". That has led to an interpretation of someone elses words through a cloudy lens. Before making assumptions about that other persons intent you should listen to their words. Have you watched Joan's presentation? Ross From: Eric Covener Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 10:32 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") > I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against anyone. > But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as you > protect my right to help you achieve the > right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of any > discrimination (positive or negative). > Community over code How do you square this with the code of conduct? In my reading, unless the discrimination threaded some extremely fine needle, it would be in violation and a good argument could be made for the defense of it being in violation as well. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:33 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > > I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against > > anyone. But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long > > as you protect my right to help you achieve the > > right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of > > any discrimination (positive or negative). > > Community over code > > How do you square this with the code of conduct? In my reading, unless > the discrimination threaded some extremely fine needle, it would be in > violation and a good argument could be made for the defense of it > being in violation as well. My sense is that introducing the term discrimination into the discussion taints it. My way of looking at it is that we don't want anybody to feel unwelcome here, and yet clearly there are individuals who don't feel welcome here, and enough of them that we can determine broad patterns. An analogy that won't make sense at first: the board votes pretty much every month to create a new PMC, and in most cases without any intention of personally participating in that PMC. I'm a native English speaker. If a group of people wanted to get together to figure out a way to attract more people who either don't speak English or don't speak English well, I'd support them. This is an effort that I would not necessarily be able to help with, but I will help them organize. I've lived my whole life in Northern America. If a group of people want to get together to figure out how to attract more people from west Africa or east Asia, I'd support them. A non-ASF code example: some work on Kubernetes to bring order to the cloud. Recently, some people have been working on Kubernetes to make this work on IOT/Edge devices. That may not be a use case every member of the first set of people are interested in, but that simply means that those that aren't interested simply don't participate. Recapping: identify a pattern in the data where a group of people are (presumably inadvertently due to our collective ineptness) made to feel unwelcome, create a proposal to address that, build consensus around that proposal, and then execute on it. If this does not result in an effort to attract a specific demographic, that's because either there isn't demonstrably a problem, or we haven't found a proposal that would address that problem. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
> I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against anyone. > But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as you > protect my right to help you achieve the > right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of any > discrimination (positive or negative). > Community over code How do you square this with the code of conduct? In my reading, unless the discrimination threaded some extremely fine needle, it would be in violation and a good argument could be made for the defense of it being in violation as well. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
Thanks for this post, Shane. You share a number of my concerns. I am absolutely not blind to opposition to some of the things I've suggested, but I would argue that the thread on the topic has become so negative and heated that informed discussion isn't useful. Again I encourage others to listen to and read my presentation to hear my concrete, achievable suggestions, and others' reactions to them at the meeting. - Original Message - Shane wrote: > A situation that's happened to me personally with saddening > regularity: > I come up with a new idea to improve a process or document, and ask > for > feedback. Some of the feedback asks "why are we bothering with this" > or > "I think that's wrong because X", or merely asks clarifying questions > / > requests for more additional data, or or or... and often ends up > being > an endless game of "fetch me a rock". > > After attempting to answer a half-dozen of these questions - many > tangential or merely expressing opposition *without providing useful > alternatives*, I simply run out of volunteer energy and give up on > the > idea completely, and I find some other place to spend my time. The > opposition of just a couple of people spending the time to keep > asking > for clarifications can often turn into a de facto veto for all sorts > of > new ideas. Yes, this is exactly the war of attrition that I'm trying to avoid in my last post. It shouldn't be up to me to endlessly rebut all of the attacks on this; they've been written hundreds and hundreds of times to date, even limiting yourself to open source development. It's not my job to rehash this yet again for another newcomer to the discussion. The concern trolling assumes bad intentions on my part. I think the proposals I've made speak for themselves as not being ill-intentioned, and don't step too far. They are in the Apache tradition of small, incremental, reversible steps. > > Apache communities work better when people who think a new idea is > [dumb > | annoying | not useful | whatever ] simply raise the general concern > once, but otherwise get out of the way. We're all volunteers; we all > have opinions; we all have things we want to work on in our different > communities. We can respectfully say we don't like some new idea, > but > it's not up to any of us to stop other volunteers from doing that new > idea that they're passionate about. > > Even better: when you don't like a new idea, come up with a better > idea, > and volunteer your own time in a new thread to productively work on > it. Yes, I'd like to shift the discussion in this direction. > Bonus link, that I hadn't seen before but I really like the > *explanations* behind this organization's social rules: > > https://www.recurse.com/social-rules Pretty sure I linked to this and mentioned it in my presentation, too. :) -Joan "let's talk action" Touzet - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
+1 for JFDI I am generally not supportive of positive discrimination. But I recognize that I can afford not to be. As Shane says it's irrelevant what I think unless I'm going to put effort into an alternative (remember a -1 around here means you object and will work on a better alternative). Feel free to force the naysayers to put effort into "fixing" what they consider to be broken about a positive discrimination approach. I say this, not just because it's the Apache Way, but also because of a day job experience... At work we had a period of what I consider positive discrimination. I was really pissed off at first. I felt it was holding me back (wrongly, but that's what it felt like). Guess what happened... I woke up one day and realized what I was experiencing was discrimination. Discrimination of the sort minorities at work were feeling. I felt there were barriers, even if they were only social ones that could be torn down wiith effort. That was one surprisingly effective lesson! Today at work every employee has a required D commitment. We get to choose what we do, but we have to show some effect in the industry. The change I've seen at work is amazing. My point is, I've learned that while I object to positive discrimination for (IMHO) really good reasons there are even better reasons why a period of it can help. I'm not going to (intentionally) actively discriminate for or against anyone. But I will protect your right, as an individual, to do so as long as you protect my right to help you achieve the right balance in our broader communities by stamping out the existence of any discrimination (positive or negative). Community over code Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Shane Curcuru Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:43:08 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy") Joan Touzet wrote on 3/30/19 12:52 AM: ...snip... > Precisely the point. I'm in favour of this, though I know others are > actively against it. I talked about this at length during my > ApacheCon 2018 talk, proposing options that are well thought-out and > fair, drawing from a wide variety of sources; I encourage you to > listen to the full recording and read my slides before passing > judgement. For the benefit of list readers: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fspeakerdeck.com%2Fwohali%2Fbuilding-and-sustaining-inclusive-communities%3Fslide%3D10data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda7e74db44914717e68b08d6b52670f4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636895574032505781sdata=1W5l6a9knggZlSKmHn1Hepx5p0edk1jIq0jlhNkTcNw%3Dreserved=0 https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffeathercast.apache.org%2F2018%2F09%2F29%2Fbuilding-and-sustaining-inclusive-communities-joan-touzet%2Fdata=02%7C01%7C%7Cda7e74db44914717e68b08d6b52670f4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636895574032505781sdata=86hnw2%2B2jN5RZ2wMj78x7K%2BgX7vS5FZ2Yvgm%2B5%2B4X5s%3Dreserved=0 ...snip... > Again as Rich says, there's explicit approval to proceed with a D > 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. There's not even a need for explicit approval for volunteers here to spend their own time finding a space to work, and building Apache 2.0 licensed content anywhere on the ComDev website, at upcoming ApacheCons, or within their own Apache projects. I'm excited to see several dedicated people showing up in this thread, and once we have a new space for the ideas Naomi and Gris and others want to work on, I'll join. But this thread does show an unfortunate classic meta-issue in many broad volunteer-run communities: people not actively working on a specific issue bringing sufficient tangential discussion, questions, and vague opposition to effectively kill new work on that issue. A situation that's happened to me personally with saddening regularity: I come up with a new idea to improve a process or document, and ask for feedback. Some of the feedback asks "why are we bothering with this" or "I think that's wrong because X", or merely asks clarifying questions / requests for more additional data, or or or... and often ends up being an endless game of "fetch me a rock". After attempting to answer a half-dozen of these questions - many tangential or merely expressing opposition *without providing useful alternatives*, I simply run out of volunteer energy and give up on the idea completely, and I find some other place to spend my time. The opposition of just a couple of people spending the time to keep asking for clarifications can often turn into a de facto veto for all sorts of new ideas. Apache comm
Building and Sustaining Inclusive Communities (was: on "meritocracy")
Joan Touzet wrote on 3/30/19 12:52 AM: ...snip... > Precisely the point. I'm in favour of this, though I know others are > actively against it. I talked about this at length during my > ApacheCon 2018 talk, proposing options that are well thought-out and > fair, drawing from a wide variety of sources; I encourage you to > listen to the full recording and read my slides before passing > judgement. For the benefit of list readers: https://speakerdeck.com/wohali/building-and-sustaining-inclusive-communities?slide=10 https://feathercast.apache.org/2018/09/29/building-and-sustaining-inclusive-communities-joan-touzet/ ...snip... > Again as Rich says, there's explicit approval to proceed with a D > 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. There's not even a need for explicit approval for volunteers here to spend their own time finding a space to work, and building Apache 2.0 licensed content anywhere on the ComDev website, at upcoming ApacheCons, or within their own Apache projects. I'm excited to see several dedicated people showing up in this thread, and once we have a new space for the ideas Naomi and Gris and others want to work on, I'll join. But this thread does show an unfortunate classic meta-issue in many broad volunteer-run communities: people not actively working on a specific issue bringing sufficient tangential discussion, questions, and vague opposition to effectively kill new work on that issue. A situation that's happened to me personally with saddening regularity: I come up with a new idea to improve a process or document, and ask for feedback. Some of the feedback asks "why are we bothering with this" or "I think that's wrong because X", or merely asks clarifying questions / requests for more additional data, or or or... and often ends up being an endless game of "fetch me a rock". After attempting to answer a half-dozen of these questions - many tangential or merely expressing opposition *without providing useful alternatives*, I simply run out of volunteer energy and give up on the idea completely, and I find some other place to spend my time. The opposition of just a couple of people spending the time to keep asking for clarifications can often turn into a de facto veto for all sorts of new ideas. Apache communities work better when people who think a new idea is [dumb | annoying | not useful | whatever ] simply raise the general concern once, but otherwise get out of the way. We're all volunteers; we all have opinions; we all have things we want to work on in our different communities. We can respectfully say we don't like some new idea, but it's not up to any of us to stop other volunteers from doing that new idea that they're passionate about. Even better: when you don't like a new idea, come up with a better idea, and volunteer your own time in a new thread to productively work on it. Bonus link, that I hadn't seen before but I really like the *explanations* behind this organization's social rules: https://www.recurse.com/social-rules -- - Shane ComDev PMC & Member The Apache Software Foundation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
