Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Vicky Vergara]

Hi all

I went to the last FOSS4G Asia in Hyderabad, India, within IIIT university
premises.
There I met wonderful students.
I was actually impressed with a particular female student, very bright, and
with lots of ideas to tell.

I invited her to eat out.
She could not go out of the university, because her father had forbidden
her to go out of the University premises.
I asked, where is your father?
She told me he lived about 300km to the north, and that when she needed to
go out, he would drive to take her to where she needed to go.

Culture: not obey the (family/religion/legal) rules is not an option.
She follows the rules, she is obedient.

What do you expect for woman who live that kind of culture, that we don't
understand, not even a 1%?
If woman like her, get invited to be a keynote speaker, what is the
probability for her to go?

Can you fight a culture that is completely different to occidental cultures?
Can you fight that culture, sitting in front of your computer, in England,
USA, Mexico?

What would you tell her if you had that conversation?
In my particular case, I told her:
I am sure my father has the same concerns as your father, that is why he
came with me.

And we ate in the University.

I invited my father, I paid his airplane ticket, hotel, food, souvenir, etc.
The reason that I invited him is: I wanted to fit in the culture as much as
possible.
When passing through customs, he was called, and he had to do the talking.
When going shopping or eating, the cashier first interaction was directed
to him.

I can't fight a culture, I have to blend in.

But I am glad that, this student's father is letting her study.
And maybe, in the future, she will have daughters that will go to the
University and they will be able to go out of the University premises to
eat.
And she will have grand-daughters that will can go out of the country
(without a chaperon) and be speakers.

Regards
Vicky







On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies 
wrote:

> On 12/08/18 21:14, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>
>> No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
>> This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
>> fallacy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_i
>> mply_causation
>>
>
> Yes, but lack of correlation refutes causation. That is their point:
> gender equality does *not* cause equality of STEM gender outcomes.
>
> Science requires humility. There is no greater experience in science than
> refuting your own hypothesis because it means that you might have
> discovered something non-obvious. The obvious hypothesis in this study was
> that equality of STEM gender outcomes would improve with gender equality.
> Their surprising discovery is the opposite. While there is much conjecture
> as to the cause, the core finding is remarkable, good science, and worthy
> of publication (in my uninformed opinion as a layman).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies 
> Director
> Transient Software Limited 
> New Zealand
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 

Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Vicky Vergara
Operations Research

eMail: vi...@georepublic.de
Web: https://georepublic.info

Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 12/08/18 21:14, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
fallacy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation


Yes, but lack of correlation refutes causation. That is their point: 
gender equality does *not* cause equality of STEM gender outcomes.


Science requires humility. There is no greater experience in science 
than refuting your own hypothesis because it means that you might have 
discovered something non-obvious. The obvious hypothesis in this study 
was that equality of STEM gender outcomes would improve with gender 
equality. Their surprising discovery is the opposite. While there is 
much conjecture as to the cause, the core finding is remarkable, good 
science, and worthy of publication (in my uninformed opinion as a layman).


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 13/08/18 07:31, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:

in my opinion, we shall distinguish between equality and equity. Even supposing that 
there were countries where there is equality  (but this is not true: think simply to the 
"gender gap", i.e. the difference in salary between men and women), the point 
is not of ensuring equality because there are great differences inherited by our history 
and by our culture. If we want to reach equality of outcomes, we have to consider equity, 
which is more than simply giving the same opportunities. Obviously, this is a choice. 
This is my choice, even if sometimes it is difficult and if sometimes I make mistakes. 
What we have collectively to decide is if, as OSGeo, we want to go in this direction. 
And, about that, I'm thinking of diversities that are wider than the gender (and, also 
about gender, better not to limit ourselves to the binary logic ;-) ).  I'm absolutely 
positive about having a BOF on diversities at next FOSS4G. The more diversities, the 
better.


I like diversity. I want equality of opportunity. While I believe that 
it is important to measure outcomes to identify and eliminate 
discrimination (including structural discrimination), outcomes are also 
affected by individual choice. While I would like equality of outcome to 
follow directly from equality of opportunity in all fields, large 
studies, including the STEM study discussed earlier, suggest that men 
and women have statistically significant differences in preference for 
fields of endeavour and balance between remuneration, conditions, and 
risk. The reasons for this are open for conjecture but the numbers are 
clear.


For example, about half the 7% gender pay gap amongst Uber drivers is 
due to men driving 2.2% faster, and about 20% of the gap is due to men 
driving at more dangerous times and locations (I consider this economic 
impact of violence against women as structural discrimination):

https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/researchers-detailed-male-uber-drivers-make-132101042.html

Improvements in outcomes are a valuable measure of success, but I do not 
think that equality of outcome should be a goal in itself. Attempts to 
impose equality of outcome may be frustrated by gender differences in 
preference. Ill-considered measures such as quotas risk causing harm by 
discriminating against candidates with greater merit. I support equality 
of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination because these are 
beneficial and, as far as I can tell, without harmful side-effects.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Bruce Bannerman]

Hello everyone,

It is good to see this discussion.

We have a very good community, with talented people from many diverse 
ethnicities, cultures and gender.

From my point of view, I would prefer to see a situation where we concentrate 
on getting the best representation for a particular event. We just need to 
ensure that the selection process is clearly defined.

I don’t want to see us select people in order to just fill a specific quota of 
one particular group, or another. 

If we have a situation where a specific event then has 100% female 
representation, then great. Similarly for other currently less represented 
groups.

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 05:31, Maria Antonia Brovelli  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Maria, Jonathan, Peter (and All)
> in my opinion, we shall distinguish between equality and equity. Even 
> supposing that there were countries where there is equality  (but this is not 
> true: think simply to the "gender gap", i.e. the difference in salary between 
> men and women), the point is not of ensuring equality because there are great 
> differences inherited by our history and by our culture. If we want to reach 
> equality of outcomes, we have to consider equity, which is more than simply 
> giving the same opportunities. Obviously, this is a choice. This is my 
> choice, even if sometimes it is difficult and if sometimes I make mistakes. 
> What we have collectively to decide is if, as OSGeo, we want to go in this 
> direction. And, about that, I'm thinking of diversities that are wider than 
> the gender (and, also about gender, better not to limit ourselves to the 
> binary logic ;-) ).  I'm absolutely positive about having a BOF on 
> diversities at next FOSS4G. The more diversities, the better. 
> Thanks for starting this thread!
> See you in Dar.
> Maria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A paper to read this summer ;-)
> 
> http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/7/8/289
> 
> 
> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> Professor of GIS and Digital Mapping
> Politecnico di Milano
> 
> P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Building 3 - 20133 Milano (Italy)
> Tel. +39-02-23996242 - Mob. +39-328-0023867,  maria.brove...@polimi.it
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Da: Discuss  per conto di María Arias de 
> Reyna 
> Inviato: domenica 12 agosto 2018 16:54:23
> A: jonathan-li...@lightpear.com
> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G
>  
> I understand it is difficult to see your own privileges and biases[1].
> That's why I always prefer that a PoC talks about racism instead of
> me. But I can still talk about inequality regarding women. Remember
> that 90% of said here applies to all PoC. And that WoC suffer this
> from both sides.
> 
> So I'm going to take a couple of steps back and start again, to see if
> you can see the flaw. Sorry for not having the best bibliography, but
> I have a weak connection here so I have to rely on things I have
> already offline. But I am sure you will be capable of following the
> lead and find better sources.
> 
> Those researchers have the prejudice that a country that has better
> indexes regarding gender equality means there should be more women
> studying STEM because nothing stops them to do so. So they call it a
> paradox that "the more equal a country is, the fewer women go into
> STEM". But the thing is, if they have researched a bit more (even just
> asking the women of the study why they don't follow a STEM career!!)
> they wouldn't call it a paradox, but something natural coming from
> other causes.
> 
> In Europe, the percentage of women studying Science is increasing,
> while percentage of women studying Technology is decreasing, according
> to Eurostat[it was a bunch of links with data from different years,
> just use the search engine from Eurostat]. That's one of the reasons
> why talking about STEM is already a first bias because you are mixing
> stuff. But many authors do this, so let's just skip it.
> 
> In Tech, women are leaving studies and the industry at higher rate
> than men[2]. Which means, we have even less women working in our
> industry than the real percentage of women that would like to work in
> our industry. This unfriendly environment causes a lack of successful
> happy role models that could encourage other girls to enter the field
> too.[3] Role models are even more important to girls than to boys
> because of the Otherness[4]. By default, everything is male.
> 
> So, first loop that explains the "paradox".
> 
> But even then, why are there fewer female college students in STEM?
> Because, as all the links I posted previously already explained,
> society pushes you out of STEM [5] [6]. Only stubborn woman like me
> get far and it is just a matter of time to get burned because of this
> unfriendly environment.
> 
> And there's more variables that influences why women are not into STEM
> in supposedly "more egalitarian countries", but I don't think I should
> extend more here. I am more t

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Maria Antonia Brovelli]

Dear Maria, Jonathan, Peter (and All)

in my opinion, we shall distinguish between equality and equity. Even supposing 
that there were countries where there is equality  (but this is not true: think 
simply to the "gender gap", i.e. the difference in salary between men and 
women), the point is not of ensuring equality because there are great 
differences inherited by our history and by our culture. If we want to reach 
equality of outcomes, we have to consider equity, which is more than simply 
giving the same opportunities. Obviously, this is a choice. This is my choice, 
even if sometimes it is difficult and if sometimes I make mistakes. What we 
have collectively to decide is if, as OSGeo, we want to go in this direction. 
And, about that, I'm thinking of diversities that are wider than the gender 
(and, also about gender, better not to limit ourselves to the binary logic ;-) 
).  I'm absolutely positive about having a BOF on diversities at next FOSS4G. 
The more diversities, the better.

Thanks for starting this thread!

See you in Dar.

Maria





A paper to read this summer ;-)

http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/7/8/289


Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Professor of GIS and Digital Mapping
Politecnico di Milano

P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Building 3 - 20133 Milano (Italy)
Tel. +39-02-23996242 - Mob. +39-328-0023867,   
maria.brove...@polimi.it






Da: Discuss  per conto di María Arias de Reyna 

Inviato: domenica 12 agosto 2018 16:54:23
A: jonathan-li...@lightpear.com
Cc: OSGeo Discussions
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

I understand it is difficult to see your own privileges and biases[1].
That's why I always prefer that a PoC talks about racism instead of
me. But I can still talk about inequality regarding women. Remember
that 90% of said here applies to all PoC. And that WoC suffer this
from both sides.

So I'm going to take a couple of steps back and start again, to see if
you can see the flaw. Sorry for not having the best bibliography, but
I have a weak connection here so I have to rely on things I have
already offline. But I am sure you will be capable of following the
lead and find better sources.

Those researchers have the prejudice that a country that has better
indexes regarding gender equality means there should be more women
studying STEM because nothing stops them to do so. So they call it a
paradox that "the more equal a country is, the fewer women go into
STEM". But the thing is, if they have researched a bit more (even just
asking the women of the study why they don't follow a STEM career!!)
they wouldn't call it a paradox, but something natural coming from
other causes.

In Europe, the percentage of women studying Science is increasing,
while percentage of women studying Technology is decreasing, according
to Eurostat[it was a bunch of links with data from different years,
just use the search engine from Eurostat]. That's one of the reasons
why talking about STEM is already a first bias because you are mixing
stuff. But many authors do this, so let's just skip it.

In Tech, women are leaving studies and the industry at higher rate
than men[2]. Which means, we have even less women working in our
industry than the real percentage of women that would like to work in
our industry. This unfriendly environment causes a lack of successful
happy role models that could encourage other girls to enter the field
too.[3] Role models are even more important to girls than to boys
because of the Otherness[4]. By default, everything is male.

So, first loop that explains the "paradox".

But even then, why are there fewer female college students in STEM?
Because, as all the links I posted previously already explained,
society pushes you out of STEM [5] [6]. Only stubborn woman like me
get far and it is just a matter of time to get burned because of this
unfriendly environment.

And there's more variables that influences why women are not into STEM
in supposedly "more egalitarian countries", but I don't think I should
extend more here. I am more than happy to have a BoF session about
diversity in next FOSS4G to extend the subject. Or in any other FOSS4G
I can attend.

So yes, that study is highly biased. In just a couple of paragraphs I
dig deeper than they did on their study about why that "paradox". And
yes, even the peer reviews were unable to see something so obvious.
Maybe because they are biased too[1]? Probably. I am not saying they
are evil on purpose or anything. I'm just saying their study is very
superficial. Just crunching a lot of data from one side and trying to
explain a multi-variable outcome with that.

To summarize: what can we do from OSGeo? Provide a welcoming friendly
environment, encourage those that are already on their path and
provide enough role models for all diverse groups. That's what I am
going to fight for. And as this is a global organi

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Patrick Hogan]

Maria, 
Beautifully expressed and quite enlightening!
As well as sad for want of the less-aggressive and 
more-nurturing instincts women bring to the equation.
We are a world out-of-balance without women truly equal.
And the increasing imbalance to both economics and 
the environment exacerbates the issue.
Thankfully FOSS4G can be a guiding light,
if we do more with it to help.

-Original Message-
From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of María Arias 
de Reyna
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2018 7:54 AM
To: jonathan-li...@lightpear.com
Cc: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

I understand it is difficult to see your own privileges and biases[1].
That's why I always prefer that a PoC talks about racism instead of
me. But I can still talk about inequality regarding women. Remember
that 90% of said here applies to all PoC. And that WoC suffer this
from both sides.

So I'm going to take a couple of steps back and start again, to see if
you can see the flaw. Sorry for not having the best bibliography, but
I have a weak connection here so I have to rely on things I have
already offline. But I am sure you will be capable of following the
lead and find better sources.

Those researchers have the prejudice that a country that has better
indexes regarding gender equality means there should be more women
studying STEM because nothing stops them to do so. So they call it a
paradox that "the more equal a country is, the fewer women go into
STEM". But the thing is, if they have researched a bit more (even just
asking the women of the study why they don't follow a STEM career!!)
they wouldn't call it a paradox, but something natural coming from
other causes.

In Europe, the percentage of women studying Science is increasing,
while percentage of women studying Technology is decreasing, according
to Eurostat[it was a bunch of links with data from different years,
just use the search engine from Eurostat]. That's one of the reasons
why talking about STEM is already a first bias because you are mixing
stuff. But many authors do this, so let's just skip it.

In Tech, women are leaving studies and the industry at higher rate
than men[2]. Which means, we have even less women working in our
industry than the real percentage of women that would like to work in
our industry. This unfriendly environment causes a lack of successful
happy role models that could encourage other girls to enter the field
too.[3] Role models are even more important to girls than to boys
because of the Otherness[4]. By default, everything is male.

So, first loop that explains the "paradox".

But even then, why are there fewer female college students in STEM?
Because, as all the links I posted previously already explained,
society pushes you out of STEM [5] [6]. Only stubborn woman like me
get far and it is just a matter of time to get burned because of this
unfriendly environment.

And there's more variables that influences why women are not into STEM
in supposedly "more egalitarian countries", but I don't think I should
extend more here. I am more than happy to have a BoF session about
diversity in next FOSS4G to extend the subject. Or in any other FOSS4G
I can attend.

So yes, that study is highly biased. In just a couple of paragraphs I
dig deeper than they did on their study about why that "paradox". And
yes, even the peer reviews were unable to see something so obvious.
Maybe because they are biased too[1]? Probably. I am not saying they
are evil on purpose or anything. I'm just saying their study is very
superficial. Just crunching a lot of data from one side and trying to
explain a multi-variable outcome with that.

To summarize: what can we do from OSGeo? Provide a welcoming friendly
environment, encourage those that are already on their path and
provide enough role models for all diverse groups. That's what I am
going to fight for. And as this is a global organization, until our
global demography statistics match the world statistics, we will be
doing something wrong.


[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
[2] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793915594597
[3] https://thesocietypages.org/trot/2017/02/22/the-role-of-female-role-models/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)
[5] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0
[6] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038040714547770
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[María Arias de Reyna]

I understand it is difficult to see your own privileges and biases[1].
That's why I always prefer that a PoC talks about racism instead of
me. But I can still talk about inequality regarding women. Remember
that 90% of said here applies to all PoC. And that WoC suffer this
from both sides.

So I'm going to take a couple of steps back and start again, to see if
you can see the flaw. Sorry for not having the best bibliography, but
I have a weak connection here so I have to rely on things I have
already offline. But I am sure you will be capable of following the
lead and find better sources.

Those researchers have the prejudice that a country that has better
indexes regarding gender equality means there should be more women
studying STEM because nothing stops them to do so. So they call it a
paradox that "the more equal a country is, the fewer women go into
STEM". But the thing is, if they have researched a bit more (even just
asking the women of the study why they don't follow a STEM career!!)
they wouldn't call it a paradox, but something natural coming from
other causes.

In Europe, the percentage of women studying Science is increasing,
while percentage of women studying Technology is decreasing, according
to Eurostat[it was a bunch of links with data from different years,
just use the search engine from Eurostat]. That's one of the reasons
why talking about STEM is already a first bias because you are mixing
stuff. But many authors do this, so let's just skip it.

In Tech, women are leaving studies and the industry at higher rate
than men[2]. Which means, we have even less women working in our
industry than the real percentage of women that would like to work in
our industry. This unfriendly environment causes a lack of successful
happy role models that could encourage other girls to enter the field
too.[3] Role models are even more important to girls than to boys
because of the Otherness[4]. By default, everything is male.

So, first loop that explains the "paradox".

But even then, why are there fewer female college students in STEM?
Because, as all the links I posted previously already explained,
society pushes you out of STEM [5] [6]. Only stubborn woman like me
get far and it is just a matter of time to get burned because of this
unfriendly environment.

And there's more variables that influences why women are not into STEM
in supposedly "more egalitarian countries", but I don't think I should
extend more here. I am more than happy to have a BoF session about
diversity in next FOSS4G to extend the subject. Or in any other FOSS4G
I can attend.

So yes, that study is highly biased. In just a couple of paragraphs I
dig deeper than they did on their study about why that "paradox". And
yes, even the peer reviews were unable to see something so obvious.
Maybe because they are biased too[1]? Probably. I am not saying they
are evil on purpose or anything. I'm just saying their study is very
superficial. Just crunching a lot of data from one side and trying to
explain a multi-variable outcome with that.

To summarize: what can we do from OSGeo? Provide a welcoming friendly
environment, encourage those that are already on their path and
provide enough role models for all diverse groups. That's what I am
going to fight for. And as this is a global organization, until our
global demography statistics match the world statistics, we will be
doing something wrong.


[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
[2] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793915594597
[3] https://thesocietypages.org/trot/2017/02/22/the-role-of-female-role-models/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)
[5] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0
[6] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038040714547770
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] ​Re: Diversity in FOSS4G

[Malena Libman]

Hello everyone.

I have been reading this thread thoughtfully and I have several concerns.

Firstly, I am of the belief that there is no scientific production tat is
100% objetive and factual; everything is tainted by the scientist baggage.

Still, it's my opinion that the discussion should not focus as much in what
others are saying our profesional environments are or should be, but in
what we want to build as our community. And here is the thing, for me every
FOSS4G, no matter where it's organized, is a representation of the
community.

Again, in my opinion, a conference that starts with an all male keynote
lineup, doesn't represent the community I want to be a part of. Having
women keynotes from the beginning it's inspiring, it allows us to dream of
being a part of a scientific and professional environment that includes us
as equals and listens tu us.

Having been a part of the volunteer organization of 3 FOSS4G in Argentina,
and coordinated one, I understand first hand the difficulties and
limitations, but I also know that with effort it's possible to build to
show in this events that the communities we are building are welcoming to
all, and can help increase the number of women in the industries we are a
part of as well as the communities.

Cheers,

Malena

El sáb., 11 ago. 2018 a las 16:00, 
escribió:

> Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
> discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-requ...@lists.osgeo.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-ow...@lists.osgeo.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: new to open source (Jody Garnett)
>2. Re: new to open source (Vicky Vergara)
>3. PostGIS 2.5.0beta2 release (Regina Obe)
>4.
> Re: Diversity in FOSS4G (Jonathan Moules)
>5. Re: Diversity in FOSS4G (María Arias de Reyna)
>6. Re: Diversity in FOSS4G (Jonathan Moules)
>7. Re: Diversity in FOSS4G (María Arias de Reyna)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:02:20 -0700
> From: Jody Garnett 
> To: akash.aggarwal.ma...@itbhu.ac.in
> Cc: OSGeo Discussions 
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] new to open source
> Message-ID:
> <
> caohbgani2h8ara98pa2h77yhuawefykbi7nt6bqycangpa9...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Akash:
>
> The google summer of code follows a set schedule, so it is some time yet
> before proposals are asked for. Minimum spanning tree does look
> interesting, perhaps have a look at projects like pgRouting to see how they
> handle network representations and if they either have a history of
> participation in GSOC or are planning to participate in 2019.
>
> I hope you enjoy your open source journey.
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 09:45, AKASH AGGARWAL 5-Yr IMD Math. & Computing <
> akash.aggarwal.ma...@itbhu.ac.in> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello!
> > My name is Akash Aggarwal and i am a fourth year  student at faculty of
> *mathematics
> > and computing *at *Indian Institute of Technology Banaras Hindu
> > University, Varanasi (IIT-BHU). *I am currently pursuing a bachelor's
> > degree in mathematical sciences.
> > I am willing to participate in Google Summer of Code 2019. I would love
> to
> > do so with OSGeo because i believe that your mission is very noble and
> that
> > i can gain a lot of software development knowledge from you.
> > I have a good knowledge of the technologies mentioned (c/c++,python etc.)
> > i will like to contribute to Implement Minimum Spanning Tree and min-cut.
> >
> > i would like to ask any available mentors, if possible, for guidance on
> > what i should do next. I am all new to this field.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > ___
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20180810/7439c373/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:58:28 -0500
> From: Vicky Vergara 
> To: Jody Garnett 
> Cc: akash.aggarwal.ma...@itbhu.ac.in,  OSGeo Discussions
> 
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] new to open source
> Message-ID:
> <
> cak_fzuu4y3kelqmjst1gubq-j7ojojvqqewejryytbgk8q_...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello akash,
>
> I am VIcky from pgRouting project.
> As Jody mentions, you need to check on GSoC schedule.
> Don't limited yourself to GSoC, we welcome non GSoC contributions also.
>
> In particular, those algorithms that you mention they just ha

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Jonathan Moules]

That's the thing: they jump into that conclusion with biased 
prejudices. Right now, we don't have equal opportunity anywhere in the 
world. Not women, not PoC. You are proving me right, they are biased!




https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

The paper clearly does *not* say "these countries are equal" (your 
Strawman) it says "the more equal a country is, the fewer women go into 
STEM" and it has over 400,000 data points behind that assertion.
If you can prove they are biased, you are encouraged to get a 
peer-reviewed paper published to that effect - it would likely set you 
onto a career in either psychology or gender studies.


I'm sorry, but if you're going to dismiss a peer-reviewed scientific 
paper out of hand without reading it because it disagrees with your 
world-views there's no point in continuing this conversation.
I would also suggest it's worth reading: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Peter Baumann]

On 12.08.2018 11:28, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Peter Baumann
>  wrote:
>> +1 for every word in Jonathan's excellently worded message. Science at its 
>> heart
>> is open (!) to any and all provable insights (and even conjectures expressed,
>> and all of that may be disproven of course), which works only if not driven 
>> by
>> dogmas wiping out unwanted results upfront as "wrong conclusions probably
>> because bias of the researchers".
>>
>> -Peter
>>
> I'm starting to wonder if you at least tried to open my links. You got
> a biased research result and hold onto that not wanting to see that
> evidence points in another direction. That's not what open science is.

my point is not about the content of the research, but the approach of stating
"bias" when results don't please.

- In the work cited by Jonathan, several reviewers have looked at it, and found
it done well enough to get published. Can you prove "bias"?
- Results of research have been presented, strictly separated from their
suggestions (opinion, if you will). Did you find any mistake in how they got
their results?
- Their suggestions are - scientifically correct - clearly marked as such. So a
debate about those is possible of course. However, we need better arguments than
just "it's biased", science lives from rationalization and providing evidence.
Not allegations.

Science is a hard job.

-Peter


>
>>
>> On 11.08.2018 23:34, Jonathan Moules wrote:
 Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
 equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
 conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.
>>> Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific 
>>> paper,
>>> seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how science works. 
>>> If
>>> there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few quirks) I 
>>> would
>>> suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by pointing out the
>>> methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out of hand. If
>>> done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper published via
>>> peer-review with some other experts in the field that refutes it which is
>>> usually good for career prospects.
>>> Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
>>> opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
>>> world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're welcome 
>>> to
>>> your own opinions, but facts are facts.
>>>
>>> Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out that 
>>> Dar
>>> doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I maintain), 
>>> and
>>> I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in the
>>> industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research on
>>> female career preferences. I'll leave it at that.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
>>tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>  - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com
>>tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis 
>> ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli 
>> destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 
>> 1083)
>>
>>

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis 
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec 
preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[María Arias de Reyna]

El dom., 12 ago. 2018 11:58, Jonathan Moules 
escribió:

>  >  No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
> This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
> fallacy:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
>
> You will find it is rarely the case that a peer-reviewed scientific
> paper in what is one of the most influential journals in its field
> (Psychology in this case) can be dismissed so readily.
>
> I suspect you have not read it. Given it's behind a paywall, the entire
> paper is available via sci-hub:
> https://sci-hub.mu/10.1177/0956797617741719
>
> As you can see if you read it, it only states the correlation, there is
> no causation. Indeed, it too like you, I, and most folks expected
> different results, that's why they called it the
> "educational-gender-equality paradox". It's a paradox - it's doing the
> opposite of what is expected - it's quite literally in the title of the
> paper.
>
> The core of the paper:
>
> "One of the main findings of this study is that, para-
> doxically, countries with lower levels of gender equality
> had relatively more women among STEM graduates than
> did more gender-equal countries. This is a paradox,
> because gender-equal countries are those that give girls
> and women more educational and empowerment oppor-
> tunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s
> engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)."
>
> They do try and take a guess as to what the reason is for this
> (causation), but they make it clear it's just a guess (a "suggestion" as
> it's phrased). That doesn't change the core correltation of the paper:
> that given more education and empowerment, women choose against STEM.
>
> Or put even more simply: given equal opportunity, it appears men and
> women preferentially choose different careers.
>

That's the thing: they jump into that conclusion with biased prejudices.
Right now, we don't have equal opportunity anywhere in the world. Not
women, not PoC. You are proving me right, they are biased!



>  > You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%
>
> I don't have any aim at all in this beyond 100% of people having equal
> opportunity to choose whatever career they wish, and I believe FOSS4G
> and OSGeo should have a similar aim. Anything else will be a dis-service
> to people of both genders.
>
>
> On 2018-08-12 10:14, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Jonathan Moules
> >  wrote:
> >>> Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
> >>> equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
> >>> conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.
> >>
> >> Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific
> >> paper, seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how
> science
> >> works. If there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few
> >> quirks) I would suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by
> pointing
> >> out the methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out
> of
> >> hand. If done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper
> >> published via peer-review with some other experts in the field that
> refutes
> >> it which is usually good for career prospects.
> >> Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
> >> opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
> >> world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're
> welcome
> >> to your own opinions, but facts are facts.
> >>
> > No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
> > This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
> > fallacy:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
> >
> > The first and second waves of feminism focused on legal. And we
> > advanced a lot. But still, this "forces of society" has been detected
> > and studied since "The Second Sex" of Simone de Beauvoir. There was
> > this general feeling (the same bias the researches of the studies fall
> > into) that when you change legality, society will follow happily. But,
> > as we can see (and study), this is not what happens.
> >
> > And we should have known it: the same happened when racism was removed
> > from law country after country: it was not removed from society.
> > Society follows more slowly, if it follows. Seriously, you should at
> > least watch the video of Neil.
> >
> > That's why third/fourth? wave of feminism (depends on how you count
> > them) are focusing on behavior of society and acceptance.
> >
> >> Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out
> that
> >> Dar doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I
> >> maintain), and I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in
> the
> >> industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research
> on
> >> female career pref

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Jonathan Moules]

>  No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts. 
This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation" 
fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation


You will find it is rarely the case that a peer-reviewed scientific 
paper in what is one of the most influential journals in its field 
(Psychology in this case) can be dismissed so readily.


I suspect you have not read it. Given it's behind a paywall, the entire 
paper is available via sci-hub: https://sci-hub.mu/10.1177/0956797617741719


As you can see if you read it, it only states the correlation, there is 
no causation. Indeed, it too like you, I, and most folks expected 
different results, that's why they called it the 
"educational-gender-equality paradox". It's a paradox - it's doing the 
opposite of what is expected - it's quite literally in the title of the 
paper.


The core of the paper:

"One of the main findings of this study is that, para-
doxically, countries with lower levels of gender equality
had relatively more women among STEM graduates than
did more gender-equal countries. This is a paradox,
because gender-equal countries are those that give girls
and women more educational and empowerment oppor-
tunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s
engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)."

They do try and take a guess as to what the reason is for this 
(causation), but they make it clear it's just a guess (a "suggestion" as 
it's phrased). That doesn't change the core correltation of the paper: 
that given more education and empowerment, women choose against STEM.


Or put even more simply: given equal opportunity, it appears men and 
women preferentially choose different careers.


> You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%

I don't have any aim at all in this beyond 100% of people having equal 
opportunity to choose whatever career they wish, and I believe FOSS4G 
and OSGeo should have a similar aim. Anything else will be a dis-service 
to people of both genders.



On 2018-08-12 10:14, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Jonathan Moules
 wrote:

Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.


Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific
paper, seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how science
works. If there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few
quirks) I would suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by pointing
out the methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out of
hand. If done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper
published via peer-review with some other experts in the field that refutes
it which is usually good for career prospects.
Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're welcome
to your own opinions, but facts are facts.


No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The first and second waves of feminism focused on legal. And we
advanced a lot. But still, this "forces of society" has been detected
and studied since "The Second Sex" of Simone de Beauvoir. There was
this general feeling (the same bias the researches of the studies fall
into) that when you change legality, society will follow happily. But,
as we can see (and study), this is not what happens.

And we should have known it: the same happened when racism was removed
from law country after country: it was not removed from society.
Society follows more slowly, if it follows. Seriously, you should at
least watch the video of Neil.

That's why third/fourth? wave of feminism (depends on how you count
them) are focusing on behavior of society and acceptance.


Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out that
Dar doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I
maintain), and I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in the
industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research on
female career preferences. I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
Jonathan

You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%. And this is not a
change that only OSGeo has to do, but we should push from different
perspectives to get something really done. As said, this is a
long-distance race, and by that I mean: I doubt my generation will
have equal opportunity ever, no matter how hard and how far we get. I
am aiming for the next generation.




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.os

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Peter Baumann
 wrote:
> +1 for every word in Jonathan's excellently worded message. Science at its 
> heart
> is open (!) to any and all provable insights (and even conjectures expressed,
> and all of that may be disproven of course), which works only if not driven by
> dogmas wiping out unwanted results upfront as "wrong conclusions probably
> because bias of the researchers".
>
> -Peter
>

I'm starting to wonder if you at least tried to open my links. You got
a biased research result and hold onto that not wanting to see that
evidence points in another direction. That's not what open science is.

>
>
> On 11.08.2018 23:34, Jonathan Moules wrote:
>>> Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
>>> equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
>>> conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.
>>
>> Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific 
>> paper,
>> seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how science works. If
>> there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few quirks) I would
>> suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by pointing out the
>> methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out of hand. If
>> done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper published via
>> peer-review with some other experts in the field that refutes it which is
>> usually good for career prospects.
>> Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
>> opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
>> world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're welcome 
>> to
>> your own opinions, but facts are facts.
>>
>> Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out that 
>> Dar
>> doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I maintain), 
>> and
>> I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in the
>> industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research on
>> female career preferences. I'll leave it at that.
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Baumann
>  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
>tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>  - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com
>tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis 
> dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec 
> preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Jonathan Moules
 wrote:
>> Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
>> equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
>> conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.
>
>
> Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific
> paper, seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how science
> works. If there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few
> quirks) I would suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by pointing
> out the methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out of
> hand. If done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper
> published via peer-review with some other experts in the field that refutes
> it which is usually good for career prospects.
> Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
> opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
> world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're welcome
> to your own opinions, but facts are facts.
>

No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The first and second waves of feminism focused on legal. And we
advanced a lot. But still, this "forces of society" has been detected
and studied since "The Second Sex" of Simone de Beauvoir. There was
this general feeling (the same bias the researches of the studies fall
into) that when you change legality, society will follow happily. But,
as we can see (and study), this is not what happens.

And we should have known it: the same happened when racism was removed
from law country after country: it was not removed from society.
Society follows more slowly, if it follows. Seriously, you should at
least watch the video of Neil.

That's why third/fourth? wave of feminism (depends on how you count
them) are focusing on behavior of society and acceptance.

> Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out that
> Dar doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I
> maintain), and I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in the
> industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research on
> female career preferences. I'll leave it at that.
> Cheers,
> Jonathan

You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%. And this is not a
change that only OSGeo has to do, but we should push from different
perspectives to get something really done. As said, this is a
long-distance race, and by that I mean: I doubt my generation will
have equal opportunity ever, no matter how hard and how far we get. I
am aiming for the next generation.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Diversity in FOSS4G

[Peter Baumann]

+1 for every word in Jonathan's excellently worded message. Science at its heart
is open (!) to any and all provable insights (and even conjectures expressed,
and all of that may be disproven of course), which works only if not driven by
dogmas wiping out unwanted results upfront as "wrong conclusions probably
because bias of the researchers".

-Peter



On 11.08.2018 23:34, Jonathan Moules wrote:
>> Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
>> equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
>> conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.
>
> Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific paper,
> seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how science works. If
> there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few quirks) I would
> suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by pointing out the
> methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out of hand. If
> done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper published via
> peer-review with some other experts in the field that refutes it which is
> usually good for career prospects.
> Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
> opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
> world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're welcome to
> your own opinions, but facts are facts.
>
> Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out that Dar
> doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I maintain), and
> I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in the
> industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research on
> female career preferences. I'll leave it at that.
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis 
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec 
preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss