settingsLogin | Registersettings

[OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

0 votes

In this meeting, rolandchan requested feedback on a survey. I've not
been following along so if I'm talking nonsense, please disregard.

Survey draft: https://drive.google.com/open?id=19P117V1OxZgRuPP6S2nwNCH6cC6v0jwwAaFswwLNqTc

  • The survey omits many aspects of diversity, EG religion,
    ethnicity, disability. Maybe I'm only seeing a small piece of the
    final survey? IMO a single large survey will be more successful than
    many small ones.
  • Q2 excludes asexuals. GSRM (gender, sexual or romantic minority) is a
    more inclusive term than LGBT, I suggest rewriting in those terms.

Alexis (lxsli)
--
Nova developer, Hewlett-Packard Limited.
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1HN.
Registered Number: 00690597 England
VAT number: GB 314 1496 79


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
asked Sep 1, 2015 in openstack-foundation by lxsli_at_hpe.com (1,640 points)   2
retagged Feb 4, 2016 by admin

85 Responses

0 votes

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking
the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as
you say

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe
there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request
all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to
participate.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth
surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity
WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is
broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should"
matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate,
and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that
way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases
that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat.
There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how
the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of
the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't
ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can
only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original
schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the
process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second
language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so
and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify
areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic
to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of
English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with
some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting
those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating
the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some
bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?
Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment,
I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics
(that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better
in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of
malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less
than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we
may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig
into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the
goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things,
including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes
analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core
team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select
“prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose,
share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the
makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose
from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you
identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text
field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will
enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual
identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re:
Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on
the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but
it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question
and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a
possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve
it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots
of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary
genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form
to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because
the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender
from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 7, 2015 by Roland_Chan (2,780 points)   1 2
0 votes

Agree on the statement that our charter is much broader than ATC.
Roland, How many participants are you targeting in the sample? BTW: pleases consider not to use google doc as the tool for the survey, because that is blocked here.

Thanks.
--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as you say

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to participate.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should" matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate, and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat. There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly? Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment, I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics (that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things, including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select “prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose, share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 8, 2015 by Wang,_Shane (1,720 points)   1 3
0 votes

We typically use surveymonkey.com does that work for you Shane?

On September 7, 2015 7:09:01 PM "Wang, Shane" shane.wang@intel.com wrote:

Agree on the statement that our charter is much broader than ATC.
Roland, How many participants are you targeting in the sample? BTW: pleases
consider not to use google doc as the tool for the survey, because that is
blocked here.

Thanks.
--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking
the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as
you say

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe
there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request
all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to participate.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth
surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn
eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn
eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should" matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate, and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn
eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat. There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly? Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment, I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics (that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things, including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select “prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose, share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E)
tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli
stefano@openstack.org, "

foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list

Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list

Foundation@lists.openstack.org

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list

Foundation@lists.openstack.org


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation



Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 8, 2015 by mark_at_openstack.or (1,960 points)   1 3
0 votes

I don't know exactly. I was thinking between 1000 and 2000, but my stats
expertise is weak, so I could be under/over-doing it.

The g-doc is just an easy tool for drafting the survey, but it's less
useful for actually running it. I hadn't realised it was blocked. I'll use
etherpad next time (hopefully I won't be drafting many surveys after this).

As per Mark's email, I was planning to use whatever the Foundation
typically uses. If there are tools that are blocked in certain
jurisdictions we definitely need to know about them so we can maximise our
potential reach.

Thanks,

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 at 10:08 Wang, Shane shane.wang@intel.com wrote:

Agree on the statement that our charter is much broader than ATC.

Roland, How many participants are you targeting in the sample? BTW:
pleases consider not to use google doc as the tool for the survey, because
that is blocked here.

Thanks.

--

Shane

From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking
the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as
you say

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe
there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request
all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to
participate.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth
surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity
WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is
broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should"
matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate,
and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that
way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases
that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat.
There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how
the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of
the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't
ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can
only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original
schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the
process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second
language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so
and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify
areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic
to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of
English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with
some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting
those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating
the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some
bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?
Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment,
I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics
(that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better
in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of
malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less
than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we
may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig
into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the
goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things,
including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes
analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core
team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select
“prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose,
share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the
makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose
from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you
identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text
field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will
enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual
identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re:
Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on
the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but
it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question
and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a
possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve
it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots
of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary
genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form
to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because
the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender
from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 8, 2015 by Roland_Chan (2,780 points)   1 2
0 votes

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking
the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as
you say

Well, even offering an incentive at a later stage will compromise the
data somewhat (i.e. undo the effect of the initial randomization).

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

In that case, I would recommend adding some questions to gauge their
level of active involvement in the community, so that we can slice and
dice the data accordingly.

e.g. it would be good to be able to hone in on the ATC subgroup of the
respondents, or the group working fulltime in the community in any capacity,
or the group working fulltime on OpenStack in more internally-facing roles
within their organization (e.g. operations, engineering/program management,
partner activity, marketing etc.)

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe
there are two classes of these).

It would be good to be able to collate those data from each of sub-
groupings alongside the totals.

It would be great if we could also request
all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to
participate.

I would advise against individually inviting any specific groups such
as PTLs, TC, board members and other community "nomenklatura", as again
that would simply serve to undo the randomization.

If the sample size is large enough and selected completely at random
it's likely to include some PTLs and/or TC members anyway. But including
all of the OpenStack nomenklatura in the sample would distort the data.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth
surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Fair enough, but I would strongly recommend that the survey is designed in
such a way to make it easy to drill down into the data specifically for the
more active sub-groups such as ATCs, or those involved in OpenStack fulltime
in some other capacity.

I, for one, wouldn't be that interested in building diversity among folks
who are only involved to the extent of voting in the board election every
year. Great if that larger group is diverse, but TBH it wouldn't be the
priority IMO.

So it would be good to know where our baseline is specifically with regard
to the more active sub-groups with the foundation membership.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity
WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is
broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should"
matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate,
and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that
way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases
that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat.
There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how
the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of
the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't
ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can
only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original
schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the
process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second
language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so
and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify
areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic
to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of
English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with
some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting
those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating
the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some
bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?
Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment,
I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics
(that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better
in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of
malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less
than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we
may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig
into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the
goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things,
including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes
analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core
team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select
“prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose,
share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the
makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose
from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you
identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text
field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will
enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual
identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re:
Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on
the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but
it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question
and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a
possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve
it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots
of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary
genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form
to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because
the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender
from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 8, 2015 by Eoghan_Glynn (7,800 points)   1 3 3
0 votes

I think we want to be broad in our community sampling - it could be that community members who have low levels of engagement or activity today could help us to see a barrier they are facing for increased participation.

Carol

-----Original Message-----
From: Eoghan Glynn [mailto:eglynn@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:36 AM
To: Roland Chan; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group.
Asking the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a
good plan as you say

Well, even offering an incentive at a later stage will compromise the data somewhat (i.e. undo the effect of the initial randomization).

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

In that case, I would recommend adding some questions to gauge their level of active involvement in the community, so that we can slice and dice the data accordingly.

e.g. it would be good to be able to hone in on the ATC subgroup of the respondents, or the group working fulltime in the community in any capacity, or the group working fulltime on OpenStack in more internally-facing roles within their organization (e.g. operations, engineering/program management, partner activity, marketing etc.)

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I
believe there are two classes of these).

It would be good to be able to collate those data from each of sub- groupings alongside the totals.

It would be great if we could also request all members of the PTL, TC,
Board and Foundation staff groups to participate.

I would advise against individually inviting any specific groups such as PTLs, TC, board members and other community "nomenklatura", as again that would simply serve to undo the randomization.

If the sample size is large enough and selected completely at random it's likely to include some PTLs and/or TC members anyway. But including
all of the OpenStack nomenklatura in the sample would distort the data.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population
worth surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Fair enough, but I would strongly recommend that the survey is designed in such a way to make it easy to drill down into the data specifically for the more active sub-groups such as ATCs, or those involved in OpenStack fulltime in some other capacity.

I, for one, wouldn't be that interested in building diversity among folks who are only involved to the extent of voting in the board election every year. Great if that larger group is diverse, but TBH it wouldn't be the priority IMO.

So it would be good to know where our baseline is specifically with regard to the more active sub-groups with the foundation membership.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually is
here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the
Diversity
WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if
there is
broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should"
matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on
attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to
discriminate,
and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging
territory if we start talking about employers filtering
candidates on the basis of educational attainment as an
exclusionary practice (with unfairness and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used
that
way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring
practices of employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to
carefully distinguish between the innate characteristics of a
person that do not impact on job performance, and those acquired
characteristics that can and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3
phases
that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat.
There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any
supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or
simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about
privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around
how
the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a
subset of
the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate
(don't
ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias.
Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid
I can
only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the
original
schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the
process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second
language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I
suspect so
and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to
identify
areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat
problematic
to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've
worked
with)
who would fall into that category of
English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers
doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those
with
some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into
counting
those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive
in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with
sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing
field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or
mandating
the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that
some
bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?
Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community
communicates primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who
consider themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the
latest draft survey with the new question about educational
attainment,
I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal
characteristics
(that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us
better
in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of
malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad
degree (that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got
less
than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind
that we
may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to
dig
into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if
the
goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many
things,
including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes
analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this
information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the
core
team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in
the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select
“prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so
choose,
share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand
the
makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can
choose
from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you
identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open
text
field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that
Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text
field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this
will
enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their
sexual
identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC
Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re:
Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another
sub-team on
the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it
isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that
every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page
intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the
group but
it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender
question
and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-si
x-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as
a
possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack
Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention
was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to
improve
it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there
are lots
of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the
non-binary
genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open
text form
to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any
other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism
because
the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to
the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th
option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if
the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about
gender
from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-open
stack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/founda
tion


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundati
on


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 8, 2015 by Barrett,_Carol_L (3,380 points)   2 3
0 votes

The intent behind requesting data from all of the small groups (Foundation
staff, TC, Board) is to provide a view of the diversity of those groups
compared to the community at large.

It is common for an organisation to demonstrate their progress in fostering
inclusion/diversity, or lack thereof, by publishing these numbers.
Essentially this demonstrates the extent to which glass ceilings exist in
an organisation.

Similarly, if we survey our populations then we will have data to determine
what the high priority areas are. Certainly, for the purposes of analysing
the data on the general community, we will need to separate the data on
small groups from the random samples.

I am intriuged by the idea of cross matching engagement levels with
diversity data. That is an excellent idea! I will add a "please rate your
level of engagement with or participation with the OpenStack community"
type question. It will be fascinating to see if there are correlations.

Thanks!

Roland.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 at 17:35 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group.
Asking
the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as
you say

Well, even offering an incentive at a later stage will compromise the
data somewhat (i.e. undo the effect of the initial randomization).

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

In that case, I would recommend adding some questions to gauge their
level of active involvement in the community, so that we can slice and
dice the data accordingly.

e.g. it would be good to be able to hone in on the ATC subgroup of the
respondents, or the group working fulltime in the community in any
capacity,
or the group working fulltime on OpenStack in more internally-facing roles
within their organization (e.g. operations, engineering/program management,
partner activity, marketing etc.)

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I
believe
there are two classes of these).

It would be good to be able to collate those data from each of sub-
groupings alongside the totals.

It would be great if we could also request
all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to
participate.

I would advise against individually inviting any specific groups such
as PTLs, TC, board members and other community "nomenklatura", as again
that would simply serve to undo the randomization.

If the sample size is large enough and selected completely at random
it's likely to include some PTLs and/or TC members anyway. But including
all of the OpenStack nomenklatura in the sample would distort the data.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population
worth
surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Fair enough, but I would strongly recommend that the survey is designed in
such a way to make it easy to drill down into the data specifically for the
more active sub-groups such as ATCs, or those involved in OpenStack
fulltime
in some other capacity.

I, for one, wouldn't be that interested in building diversity among folks
who are only involved to the extent of voting in the board election every
year. Great if that larger group is diverse, but TBH it wouldn't be the
priority IMO.

So it would be good to know where our baseline is specifically with regard
to the more active sub-groups with the foundation membership.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the
Diversity
WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there
is
broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should"
matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on
attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to
discriminate,
and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging
territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the
basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with
unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used
that
way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring
practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to
carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do
not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that
can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com
wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3
phases
that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat.
There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple
data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about
privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around
how
the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset
of
the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate
(don't
ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone
with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I
can
only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original
schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the
process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second
language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I
suspect so
and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to
identify
areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat
problematic
to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've
worked
with)
who would fall into that category of
English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers
doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those
with
some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into
counting
those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive
in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with
sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing
field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or
mandating
the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that
some
bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?
Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who
consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the
latest
draft survey with the new question about educational
attainment,
I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics
(that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us
better
in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of
malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad
degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less
than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind
that we
may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig
into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if
the
goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things,
including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes
analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the
core
team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the
past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select
“prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose,
share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the
makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose
from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you
identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text
field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that
Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text
field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will
enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual
identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re:
Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another
sub-team on
the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it
isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that
every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page
intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group
but
it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender
question
and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a
possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack
Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention
was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to
improve
it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are
lots
of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary
genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text
form
to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any
other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism
because
the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to
the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th
option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender
from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 8, 2015 by Roland_Chan (2,780 points)   1 2
0 votes

Yes, thank you Mark.

Best Regards.
--
Shane
From: mark@openstack.org [mailto:mark@openstack.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 8:16 AM
To: Wang, Shane; Roland Chan; Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

We typically use surveymonkey.com does that work for you Shane?

On September 7, 2015 7:09:01 PM "Wang, Shane" shane.wang@intel.com wrote:
Agree on the statement that our charter is much broader than ATC.
Roland, How many participants are you targeting in the sample? BTW: pleases consider not to use google doc as the tool for the survey, because that is blocked here.

Thanks.
--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as you say

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to participate.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should" matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate, and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat. There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly? Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment, I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics (that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things, including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select “prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose, share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org<mailto:Foundation%40lists.openstack.org>
http:/​/​lists​.​openstack​.​org/​cgi-bin/​mailman/​listinfo/​foundation

Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 10, 2015 by Wang,_Shane (1,720 points)   1 3
0 votes

Hi Roland,

It doesn’t matter, the google doc isn’t blocked for me because I’m in Intel office.
What I mean is the people here can’t access google.doc if they are in the sample of your survey.

Best Regards.
--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:34 PM
To: Wang, Shane; Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

I don't know exactly. I was thinking between 1000 and 2000, but my stats expertise is weak, so I could be under/over-doing it.

The g-doc is just an easy tool for drafting the survey, but it's less useful for actually running it. I hadn't realised it was blocked. I'll use etherpad next time (hopefully I won't be drafting many surveys after this).

As per Mark's email, I was planning to use whatever the Foundation typically uses. If there are tools that are blocked in certain jurisdictions we definitely need to know about them so we can maximise our potential reach.

Thanks,

Roland
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 at 10:08 Wang, Shane shane.wang@intel.com wrote:
Agree on the statement that our charter is much broader than ATC.
Roland, How many participants are you targeting in the sample? BTW: pleases consider not to use google doc as the tool for the survey, because that is blocked here.

Thanks.
--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as you say

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe there are two classes of these). It would be great if we could also request all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to participate.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should" matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate, and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat. There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly? Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment, I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics (that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things, including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select “prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose, share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 10, 2015 by Wang,_Shane (1,720 points)   1 3
0 votes

How about to add question(s) to know who are doing the survey – ATC? PTL? TC? Dev? Ops? or any multiple roles of the above?

--
Shane
From: Roland Chan [mailto:roland@aptira.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 7:41 AM
To: Eoghan Glynn; foundation
Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re: Diversity Workgroup APAC 2015-08-27

The intent behind requesting data from all of the small groups (Foundation staff, TC, Board) is to provide a view of the diversity of those groups compared to the community at large.

It is common for an organisation to demonstrate their progress in fostering inclusion/diversity, or lack thereof, by publishing these numbers. Essentially this demonstrates the extent to which glass ceilings exist in an organisation.

Similarly, if we survey our populations then we will have data to determine what the high priority areas are. Certainly, for the purposes of analysing the data on the general community, we will need to separate the data on small groups from the random samples.

I am intriuged by the idea of cross matching engagement levels with diversity data. That is an excellent idea! I will add a "please rate your level of engagement with or participation with the OpenStack community" type question. It will be fascinating to see if there are correlations.

Thanks!

Roland.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 at 17:35 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

My intent was to randomly sample and then offer an incentive. Thus we
would, hopefully get a very high response rate from a random group. Asking
the entire population with an incentive is definitely not a good plan as
you say

Well, even offering an incentive at a later stage will compromise the
data somewhat (i.e. undo the effect of the initial randomization).

In terms of who we sample the answer is I think everyone.

In that case, I would recommend adding some questions to gauge their
level of active involvement in the community, so that we can slice and
dice the data accordingly.

e.g. it would be good to be able to hone in on the ATC subgroup of the
respondents, or the group working fulltime in the community in any capacity,
or the group working fulltime on OpenStack in more internally-facing roles
within their organization (e.g. operations, engineering/program management,
partner activity, marketing etc.)

We get a sample from each of the groupings, ATC would be one of them
obviously, but we also want to survey non-ATC community members (I believe
there are two classes of these).

It would be good to be able to collate those data from each of sub-
groupings alongside the totals.

It would be great if we could also request
all members of the PTL, TC, Board and Foundation staff groups to
participate.

I would advise against individually inviting any specific groups such
as PTLs, TC, board members and other community "nomenklatura", as again
that would simply serve to undo the randomization.

If the sample size is large enough and selected completely at random
it's likely to include some PTLs and/or TC members anyway. But including
all of the OpenStack nomenklatura in the sample would distort the data.

I would not want to send a message that ATCs are the only population worth
surveying. Our charter is much broader than that.

Fair enough, but I would strongly recommend that the survey is designed in
such a way to make it easy to drill down into the data specifically for the
more active sub-groups such as ATCs, or those involved in OpenStack fulltime
in some other capacity.

I, for one, wouldn't be that interested in building diversity among folks
who are only involved to the extent of voting in the board election every
year. Great if that larger group is diverse, but TBH it wouldn't be the
priority IMO.

So it would be good to know where our baseline is specifically with regard
to the more active sub-groups with the foundation membership.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 1:48 AM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Mate, you should come to the meetings.

TBH neither of the alternating timeslots works with my schedule :(

A couple more thoughts though on the survey design ...

Up-thread someone suggested an incentive for participation.

I'm not an expert on sampling methodologies, but I suspect such an
incentive would actually amplify distortions due to self-selection.

Instead, it would be sounder from a methodological perspective to
randomly select a subset of the population to survey, rather than
relying on reactions to an incentive.

Which bring us to the question of what that "population" actually
is here, i.e. where are we most interested in measuring/promoting
diversity?

I would lean towards the ATC community, since there's a requirement
to show some minimal concrete involvement (i.e. land a single patch).

Whereas the obvious alternative, the Foundation membership roll,
anecdotally includes many "paper" members with little substantive
involvement in the community.

Also I'd recommend removing the question on religion from the survey.
To my eyes, the question seems oddly out-of-place in a survey to be
undertaken within a technical community. The levels of adherence in
such a community may differ naturally from the overall population in
ways that make it difficult to reason over any data produced.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 7:11 PM Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

Interesting. Educational attainment as a proxy for merit ;)

Not a proxy for merit, more as a foundation for success in a
knowledge/skill-based industry.

Education is one of the designated interest areas for the Diversity
WG,
hence it's inclusion. I'm happy to remove it of course if there is
broad
consensus that it isn't appropriate or needed.

FWIW I'd recommend removing it.

Having said that, the question isn't whether something "should"
matter.
The
whole point of exclusionary practice is that it focuses on attributes
that
may not matter. What is important is what is used to discriminate,
and
analysing which of those are valid and invalid.

I'm concerned that we'd be getting into credibility-damaging territory
if we start talking about employers filtering candidates on the basis
of educational attainment as an exclusionary practice (with unfairness
and/or discrimination implied).

Is Education one of those attributes? Dunno. I've seen it used that
way
and
it certainly could be in our community (or in the hiring practices of
employers in the community).

When critically appraising hiring practices, IMO we need to carefully
distinguish between the innate characteristics of a person that do not
impact on job performance, and those acquired characteristics that can
and do so.

Just my $0.02 ...

Cheers,
Eoghan

Roland

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 at 02:16 Eoghan Glynn eglynn@redhat.com wrote:

I've added all the categories identified in the 3 phases
that
were
previously agreed, and altered the questions somewhat.
There
are
now 10
questions. I'm not keen to try to add any supplementary
questions.

Where I think we need to move beyond binary or simple data
(country,
age),
I have stayed with free text entry.

I haven't yet written any introductory blurb about privacy
protection,
the
optional nature of the survey all the questions.

Similarly, I haven't yet addressed any issues around how
the
survey
should
be targeted. I'm leaning towards a surveying a subset of
the
population,
and trying to provide an incentive to participate (don't
ask,
haven't
got
one yet), so as to reduce self-selection bias. Anyone with
professional
knowledge in this area please speak up.

I'm unlikely to make the next meeting, so I'm afraid I can
only
discuss
via email. We're running a little behind the original
schedule,
but I
hope
to be able to engage the Foundation to commence the
process of
executing
the survey by the end of next week.

One area I always wonder about is English as a second
language,
does
it
hamper efforts to get engaged in the community? I suspect so
and
would
like
to find solutions for further inclusion.

Can that be added if the goal of the survey is to identify
areas
where
underrepresented people may be struggling?

It's an interesting question, but may be somewhat problematic
to
include in a survey.

For one thing, there are many in the community (who I've worked
with)
who would fall into that category of
English-as-a-second-language
but would also have excellent proficiency in the language.

So simply measuring the number of non-native-speakers doesn't
necessarily
tell us much in terms of hampered participation.

Also, it seems to cross the line between counting those with
some
innate
characteristic (gender, orientation, race etc.) into counting
those
with
an (assumed) lack of mastery of a skill needed to thrive in the
community.

Their proficiency can and will improve over time with sustained
use.
Also
the community can make allowances and level the playing field
somewhat
by
say promoting co-presenters for design sessions or mandating
the
use of
IRC as opposed to voice comms, but I would suspect that some
bar in
terms
of baseline English fluency will remain long-term.

Cheers,
Eoghan

Good points, Eoghan. Why not phrase the question directly?
Something
like "Does the fact that the OpenStack community communicates
primarily in English make it harder for you to participate?"

Sure, that's better - at least it only counts those who consider
themselves truly hampered by a language barrier.

Though thinking about it some more, and looking again at the latest
draft survey with the new question about educational attainment,
I'm
thinking that concentrating on innate personal characteristics
(that
shouldn't matter in terms of participation) would serve us better
in
building diversity ... rather than straying into the area of
malleable
characteristics like having earned an under-grad/post-grad degree
(that do, and arguably should, matter).

Cheers,
Eoghan

Doug

Also, just to comment on the survey sampling, we got less
than 30
responses
to our Women of OpenStack survey, so keep it in mind that we
may
not
get
meaningful data that you can act upon. We may need to dig
into
the
Foundation data and enhance those profiles instead, if the
goal
is
"find
ways to reach underrepresented groups."
Thanks,
Anne

Cheers,

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 11:42 Johnston, Tamara <
Tamara.Johnston@emc.com>
wrote:

The Diversity WG is actively working on many things,
including
moving
forward with our Data Diversity Plan that includes
analyzing
what,
where
and how we’re currently collecting this information,
determining
where
to
store this information, defining how to enable the core
team
to
analyze
and
report on this data, so on and so forth.

I support the stance the Foundation has taken in the past,
which
was
to
provide an open text field (and/or option to select
“prefer
not to
say”)
that enables a community member to, if they so choose,
share
their
identity. While we’re trying to better understand the
makeup
of
our
community we cannot limit the options they can choose
from or
ask
what
will
likely be perceived as personal questions (do you
identify as
a
gender
minority). We can either choose to use an open text
field /
prefer
not to
say approach or take the hybrid approach that Facebook has
taken
where
they
list 50+ identities but still have an open text field. I
suggest
we
stick
with what the Foundation has been doing, as this will
enable
our
community
members to decide if they want to share their sexual
identity
and
they’re
not boxed into choosing X, Y, or Z.

Regards,

Tamara Johnston | Cloud Portfolio | EMC Global
Services |
(C)
1-510-398-9114 | (E) tamara.johnston@emc.com

From: Roland Chan roland@aptira.com
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Stefano Maffulli stefano@openstack.org, "
foundation@lists.openstack.org" <
foundation@lists.openstack.org>

Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Diversity] re:
Diversity
Workgroup
APAC 2015-08-27

The existing data is being handled by another sub-team on
the
Diversity
WG. I'm certainly keen to see it, but getting it isn't my
focus.

Regarding the opt-out capability, my intent is that every
question is
optional. The survey itself will require a one page intro
where we
address
this and other privacy related issues.

Roland

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 at 02:39 Stefano Maffulli <
stefano@openstack.org>
wrote:

On 09/01/2015 08:53 AM, Amy Marrich wrote:

I had sent this to a smaller section of the group but
it
deals
with
how
the University of California asks the gender question
and
also
includes
sexual orientation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/university-california-offers-six-choices-for-gender-identity/

We may be able to get a hold of their survey as a
possible
guideline.

At the beginning of 2014[1], the OpenStack Foundations
started
asking
its members to specify their gender. The intention was to
start
measuring that aspect of diversity in order to improve
it.
Since
the
gender issue is extremely new to society, there are lots
of
acronyms
and
constant fluxes of differences among the non-binary
genders.
We
decided,
after long debate and research, to use an open text form
to
specify
gender because that's the most flexible one. Any other
system we
found,
including the one from UC above, had criticism because
the
debate
even
among scholars is not set.

You may have noticed that the form to subscribe to the
Summit for
example asks gender offering 4 options:

  • male
  • female
  • let me tell you
    > open form

(I noticed now it's missing the very valuable 4th option
"prefer
not
to
say", which I think may be useful to have even if the
response is
itself
optional)

Has anybody looked at the historic data about gender
from the
members
database?

/stef

[1] A summary of that conversation is on my blog

http://maffulli.net/2014/02/05/tracking-gender-diversity-in-the-openstack-developer-community/


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

--
Anne Gentle
Rackspace
Principal Engineer
www.justwriteclick.com


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org

http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation


Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
responded Sep 10, 2015 by Wang,_Shane (1,720 points)   1 3
...