community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Diversity: How many disabled people are at Apache
Date Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:22:42 GMT
Noah,
first of all, you make a 'category' that in this case encompasses roughly
half the population. Then you make the strawman that I claim that this huge
category has no skills. Dishonest, at best.

Yes, there are plenty of people with disadvantage for joining ASF. You need
a computer, which a majority of people in world don't have and can't afford
one. You more or less need somewhat steady Internet connectivity, which is
also outside the reach of a large portion of the population. You need
English skills to some degree, not only read and write, which is also
excluding at least half the world. You need interest in software or perhaps
some related aspects of what we do. You need time, again something that
many people don't have. And yes, you need some skills, no doubt, although I
am not sure which ones. You need to agree with the principle of the Apache
License, which many people (of those privileged few who pass everything
else) don't.
Is it ASF's mission to solve these disadvantages? I hope that is not what
you are trying to say...

Rich,
I know that diversity is sold as self-interest and that more diverse
communities are (claimed to be, but I have not found any such reference to
studies in software, but I can grant that) creating better products. I am
not as ignorant as you may think. Take a look at ROSE[1]. "I would like a
job in Technology" shows an incredible disparity between boys and girls in
rich countries. One can ponder over that one alone for a long time...
"Working with People rather than Things" will then make you wonder some
more...
Other people are devoting research careers to this topic, and I don't think
the ASF has needed competence to do this properly.


[1] Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) study, SjĂžberg & Schreiner 2010


Cheers

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> > Now, this is what I know as "equality in opportunity" and is why I am
> somewhat skeptical to efforts focused on increasing so called diversity for
> the sake of diversity, also known as "equality in outcome".
>
> The implication of this line of thought is that, for example, women have
> the opportunity to contribute to Apache and simply lack the skills to do
> so. (I hope this sounds as absurd and as grossly offensive to the other
> people on this list as it does to me.)
>
> If women CHOOSE not to contribute, then we ought to start thinking about
> why they would choose not to contribute. It might be the case, for example,
> that Apache isn't a very hospitable place for women. And if that's the case
> then, how accurate is it really to say we provide "equal opportunity".
>
> Or perhaps it is the case that women are disadvantaged by society in ways
> that make contributing to Apache hard (for example, not having the economic
> security or free time necessary to contribute). And if that's the case, if
> our organisation is only accessible to certain types of people, then how
> accurate is it really to say we provide "equal opportunity".
>
> Given that Apache exists to produce software for the public good (an
> inherently political goal) it behooves us to understand the political
> forces at work that impede our ability to grow and look after a community
> of people who can help us do that.
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 09:06 William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Now, this is what I know as "equality in opportunity" and is why I am
> > > somewhat skeptical to efforts focused on increasing so called diversity
> > for
> > > the sake of diversity, also known as "equality in outcome". IMHO, a
> > highly
> > > politicized topic, something that ASF traditionally has stayed away
> from,
> > > except when it comes to "identity politics", because everyone is scared
> > of
> > > being classified in the negative.
> > >
> >
> > Understanding your skepticism, is there a reason for you to project that
> > into many other individuals' interests and concerns? It seems like a sort
> > or rude way to inject your politics into a sincere inquiry. For that
> > matter,
> > although I hadn't known of individuals at the ASF (I might know them, but
> > am unaware) - I've known many physically disabled computer scientists
> > who find some amazing adaptive technologies to let them do what they
> > want to do, and in our thousands of committers, already trust that there
> > are dozens in our lot who are doing fine. [Edit to add, you and I are
> very
> > familiar with one specific individual within the membership, but I'm not
> > going to call that individual out unless they want to dive into this
> > discussion. And I'm still sure there are others who haven't shared.]
> >
> >
> > > [1] In Apache Zest, we had a professional, classical musician creating
> an
> > > example project, and in that gave a lot of useful feedback. When we
> found
> > > out that he never worked in software, we were all quite surprised, as
> his
> > > work was of remarkably high caliber. I think this is rather common...
> > >
> >
> > We had an an airline pilot. Collectively, we come from very diverse
> > upbringing,
> > educations, career paths, genders and castes. I found your reply in
> defense
> > of refusing to let others ponder such questions you don't want to ponder
> > really insulting. Participate in such studies, or don't. Study the
> results,
> > or don't. The agenda is inclusion, and it seems that you are happy to
> have
> > many people included in your projects. If that is the case, the
> dismissive
> > tone of your posts, but particularly reacting to specific posts like
> this,
> > is
> > simply impolite.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill
> >
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message