Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee reporting to the President

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:27 PM Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> ...Com Dev we intend to move the D responsibility to a separate Presidents 
> committee

I like the idea, big +1 to this.

I won't get into discussions about who's holier than others, though ;-)

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee reporting to the President

[Jim Jagielski]

I object to the form of this "request/demand" but so what. The decision has 
been made, obviously, and any objection or discussion will obviously not be 
booked nor brokered.

Sad. But this is what happens when politics invade.

I wish D all the best, but with the continual self-congratulatory 
back-slapping that will obviously occur, and the "holier-than-thou" attitudes, 
I have my doubts.

What a great auspicious start to a task supposedly about Diversity and 
Inclusion.

I will waste no more of my time on this.

Good luck. 

o+o

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Ross Gardler 
>  wrote:
> 
> + ComDev
> 
> Com Dev we intend to move the D responsibility to a separate Presidents 
> committee. The outputs will be fully integrated with ComDev, but actions will 
> be separate in order to allow a scalpel like approach independent of the 
> broader interests of ComDev which should focus on all community, not just 
> some.
> 
> I want to be very clear about why I phrase my request this way, and why I am 
> sorting this move. I speak as the original VP of ComDev, past director and 
> president, current EVP and, most importantly, white, middle aged and male, 
> with a somewhat unique experience and over 30 years of advocacy for equality 
> (including a politically and diversity motivated music career, living as part 
> of a 3% minority, running a consultancy with a partner specializing in 
> accessibility, dealing with D issues in my day job and my home life and 
> generally being aware that despite all this I'm full of unconcious bias).
> 
> I was the point of contact for the CoC here at the ASF for a number of years 
> and as a result was involved with a number of cases, three of which involved 
> law enforcement. I repeat, the of which involved law enforcement.
> 
> What most people fail to understand is that there is a "build up" of isms. 
> What might be small (like saying "you guys") is one droplet of "ism" that 
> fills the pool that ultimately either drowns people or drives them away in 
> self preservation.
> 
> Most of the issues we have are droplets like this (though please remember 
> three cases involved law enforcement). Very few of us, if any, are outright 
> sexist or racist or "ableist". Yet the majority of us contribute, 
> inadvertently, to the problem through unconscious bias.
> 
> Nobody is asking us to be perfect. But we are asking for people to recognize 
> they are imperfect. Just these discussions about the need for D are 
> examples of the problem.
> 
> ComDev should support the separation of the D initiative so that it can 
> continue to focus on community all-up. D should be a Presidents committee 
> where things can get done without participants having to face the pointless 
> and endless discussions over whether there is even a problem.
> 
> I know that's not how the Apache Way works, but we have precedence all over 
> the place. The key is to ensure there is oversight to prevent overstepping.
> 
> Even ComDev itself, which was set up to run GSoC engagements, ran for years 
> as me being a BD organizing GSoC, otherwise we would have spent all the GSOC 
> planning time arguing about how to evaluate projects and how the process is 
> unfair. ComDev was created when I had solidified the process, not before. PR, 
> which devolved into a shooting match unable to progress eventually became 
> Sally and the board kicked everyone out and let Sally rebuild. ConCom also 
> failed because of the noise. It took years of Rich being a BD before we got 
> into a healthy state, even today with a committee, we have leads for each 
> event. Legal, trademarks, finance - all are structured this way. All remain 
> answerable to the board, sometimes via Prez,
> and thus the membership regardless of structure.
> 
> 2015 was the first year I spoke about D as Prez. It was far too late.
> 
> Others had been trying for years.
> 
> I considered the fact that I would be attacked for doing it (and I was).
> 
> I did it anyway (and I was right to do so).
> 
> Since then we've done alot, but not enough.
> 
> Time to step up or get out of the way. I welcome oversight, I reject 
> obstructionist behavior.
> 
> ComDev please acknowledge we need to spin the D effort off. We need to 
> empower the creation of finely tuned activities to help our communities 
> understand this space. We need that to be a part - of the broader ComDev 
> effort, but it should not be subject to the unconscious bias of the majority, 
> like me.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
> 
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:46:13 AM
> To: divers...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee 
> reporting to the President
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> ...I guess the main question is whether or not ComDev, which has D in its
>> charter and mandate, is OK with another cmmt 

Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee reporting to the President

[Myrle Krantz]

Hey Kenn,

This claim has been made several times, so I went looking.  Here's the
resolution that formed comdev:
https://community.apache.org/comdevboardresolution.html

D aren't mentioned.  The closest this comes is mentioning that the women@
list would be taken over by ComDev.  Missions do evolve, and I personally
have, up till now, considered D to be ComDev's job.  But unless there's
another board resolution on this, it doesn't seem that ComDev actually ever
was *officially* responsible for D

That being said, I think it would be good for ComDev to officially support
the D resolution when it is placed before the board.  I will start a
separate thread with a wording proposal.

Best,
Myrle
PMC Member, Apache Community Development


On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:57 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> > > ...ComDev, which has D in its charter and mandate...
> >
>
> Is this based on the charter of "The Community Development PMC is
> responsible for helping people become involved with Apache projects" or is
> there some more explicit resolution about comdev having D in its charter?
>
> Kenn
>

Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee reporting to the President

[Ross Gardler]

As the originating VP I will state that the ComDev PMC was never setup to 
address D directly. It was set up to be a "welcome mat" for new people to the 
ASF. Predominently it was about running Google Summer of Code. The resolution 
was broader than this to allow an appropriate growth in scope. This can, 
arguably, include D

However, the assumption that it *must* reside here is nonsense. TAC isn't here, 
Conferences isn't here. Incubator isn't here.

A case can certainly be made, but as I argue elsethread, there are reasons why 
IMHO it shouldn't be here (D requires a focused and detail oriented approach 
with protection from the drip-drip-drip of unconcious bias).

Ross


From: Kenneth Knowles 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:56 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Cc: divers...@apache.org; Community Development
Subject: Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee 
reporting to the President

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> > ...ComDev, which has D in its charter and mandate...
>

Is this based on the charter of "The Community Development PMC is
responsible for helping people become involved with Apache projects" or is
there some more explicit resolution about comdev having D in its charter?

Kenn

Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee reporting to the President

[Kenneth Knowles]

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> > ...ComDev, which has D in its charter and mandate...
>

Is this based on the charter of "The Community Development PMC is
responsible for helping people become involved with Apache projects" or is
there some more explicit resolution about comdev having D in its charter?

Kenn

Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee reporting to the President

[Ross Gardler]

+ ComDev

Com Dev we intend to move the D responsibility to a separate Presidents 
committee. The outputs will be fully integrated with ComDev, but actions will 
be separate in order to allow a scalpel like approach independent of the 
broader interests of ComDev which should focus on all community, not just some.

I want to be very clear about why I phrase my request this way, and why I am 
sorting this move. I speak as the original VP of ComDev, past director and 
president, current EVP and, most importantly, white, middle aged and male, with 
a somewhat unique experience and over 30 years of advocacy for equality 
(including a politically and diversity motivated music career, living as part 
of a 3% minority, running a consultancy with a partner specializing in 
accessibility, dealing with D issues in my day job and my home life and 
generally being aware that despite all this I'm full of unconcious bias).

I was the point of contact for the CoC here at the ASF for a number of years 
and as a result was involved with a number of cases, three of which involved 
law enforcement. I repeat, the of which involved law enforcement.

What most people fail to understand is that there is a "build up" of isms. What 
might be small (like saying "you guys") is one droplet of "ism" that fills the 
pool that ultimately either drowns people or drives them away in self 
preservation.

Most of the issues we have are droplets like this (though please remember three 
cases involved law enforcement). Very few of us, if any, are outright sexist or 
racist or "ableist". Yet the majority of us contribute, inadvertently, to the 
problem through unconscious bias.

Nobody is asking us to be perfect. But we are asking for people to recognize 
they are imperfect. Just these discussions about the need for D are examples 
of the problem.

ComDev should support the separation of the D initiative so that it can 
continue to focus on community all-up. D should be a Presidents committee 
where things can get done without participants having to face the pointless and 
endless discussions over whether there is even a problem.

I know that's not how the Apache Way works, but we have precedence all over the 
place. The key is to ensure there is oversight to prevent overstepping.

Even ComDev itself, which was set up to run GSoC engagements, ran for years as 
me being a BD organizing GSoC, otherwise we would have spent all the GSOC 
planning time arguing about how to evaluate projects and how the process is 
unfair. ComDev was created when I had solidified the process, not before. PR, 
which devolved into a shooting match unable to progress eventually became Sally 
and the board kicked everyone out and let Sally rebuild. ConCom also failed 
because of the noise. It took years of Rich being a BD before we got into a 
healthy state, even today with a committee, we have leads for each event. 
Legal, trademarks, finance - all are structured this way. All remain answerable 
to the board, sometimes via Prez,
and thus the membership regardless of structure.

2015 was the first year I spoke about D as Prez. It was far too late.

Others had been trying for years.

I considered the fact that I would be attacked for doing it (and I was).

I did it anyway (and I was right to do so).

Since then we've done alot, but not enough.

Time to step up or get out of the way. I welcome oversight, I reject 
obstructionist behavior.

ComDev please acknowledge we need to spin the D effort off. We need to 
empower the creation of finely tuned activities to help our communities 
understand this space. We need that to be a part - of the broader ComDev 
effort, but it should not be subject to the unconscious bias of the majority, 
like me.

Ross


Get Outlook for Android


From: Bertrand Delacretaz 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:46:13 AM
To: divers...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Requesting the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion committee 
reporting to the President

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> ...I guess the main question is whether or not ComDev, which has D in its
> charter and mandate, is OK with another cmmt taking on its role in this 
> area...

Good point, I agree that the comdev PMC needs to agree to "spin off"
D to a distinct committee or PMC.

> ...That seems very, very wonky to me and quite out of form..

I see it as just one thing that needs to be fixed and is easy to fix,
by a comdev PMC vote for example - no big deal.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org