[diversity] Experiences from the Django community

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 13:24, Erik Romijn wrote:
>> On intersectionality: any D&I initiative that wants to stay away from
>> the complexity of intersectionality is dead in the water, as is an
>> initiative that wants to treat everyone equal.
> [snip]
>> We can not treat everyone the same,
>> because we are doing this in a society where marginalised groups and
>> many others are already not treated equal or provided equal
>> opportunities. And simplifying efforts to “sex discrimination” is
>> simply way too narrow.
>
> I wanted to address this point separately, because it cuts to the core
> of one of the discussions we are having, and because Erik is not the
> only participant to have spoken against the principle of equality.
>
> If we adopt the idea of non-discrimination, equal treatment and respect
> for the individual as a participant as our organising principle, this
> will indeed leave certain approaches to diversity based on bias and
> preference "dead in the water". I don't think we should be ashamed of
> that; we should embrace it.
>
> But that doesn't mean that there is no legitimate agenda for diversity
> and inclusion. So I'd like, in this e-mail, to set out a non-exhaustive
> list of activities I would like this taskforce to consider as part of an
> inclusion agenda that respects people as individuals.
>
>
> 1. Commitment to non-discrimination.
>
> We should draft and recommend for community consensus approval a
> commitment to avoid discrimination and bias. Nobody should be treated
> more or less favourably in their participation in the RIPE community on
> account of their sex, race, gender self-identification, adult age,
> sexual orientation, nationality within the RIPE NCC service region, and
> probably a number of other characteristics. Are there further
> characteristics that should normally be irrelevant, but might possibly
> be relevant in certain defined ways or in particular circumstances? We
> should work this through.
>

Do you feel like the Code of Conduct
https://ripe74.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ and
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-code-of-conduct
is not sufficient? What's it lacking?


> 2. Survey of experiences and attitudes to existing behaviour
>
> We should consider a community survey to discover
> - have participants experienced abusively discriminatory treatment?
> (presumably some will have, but we need to ascertain prevalence)
> - how did this affect them?
> - in particular, would RIPE participants feel comfortable recommending
> participation to others, or would they feel the need to warn/caution
> about the existence of abusive behaviours
> - is there a community appetite for more formalised means of policing
> such behaviours?
>
> I think we should also consider trying to actively survey former
> community participants who no longer participate, to discover if
> non-participation was motivated by a previous negative experience
> (again, prevalence); and also, if not, to discover if there was another
> identifiable lack that might be remediable.
>

Giving a survey of people's experiences is a good idea, but not if it
the purpose is only to say "there's not a problem" as it is very
difficult (close to impossible) to survey people who have left the
community and people who don't feel comfortable joining in the first
place.  There's survivorship bias.


> 3. Regional inclusion: venue policy
>
> My own perception is that RIPE meetings are predominantly held in
> Northern, Western and Central Europe, with an under-representation for
> venues further east, in Central Asia and the Gulf region. We could start
> by looking at actual data on venues, and also ask the NCC how they
> currently go about choosing a venue, and what considerations (and
> constraints) apply.
> Then I think we need to have a discussion about what constitutes "fair
> circulation". Should we have a strict policy of circulating between
> subregions (e.g. Scandinavia, Balkans, Gulf, Southern EU, Caucusas etc)?
> Should we accept bias in favour of regions with more Internet users?
> With more network operators? With more existing RIPE participants?
> Permanently, or as a temporary concession to pragmatism, while aiming
> towards stricter circulation?

Were you at RIPE73? Hans Petter did a lot of talking about this when
Dubai was announced.  The RIPE NCC does a lot of work on venue
selection, but is limited to where groups step up for sponsorship.


>
> 4. Regional inclusion: awareness raising
>
> The NCC is already conducting an awareness programme to seek to reduce
> non-participation by reason of lack of awareness in particular regions.
> What part could or should the RIPE community play in furthering that
> goal? Are there opportunities to encourage direct partnership between
> existing community participants (or their employers/affiliates) and the
> NCC, rather than expecting the NCC to carry this all on their own?
>
> Linked with this is the issue of relations between RIPE and local NOGs
> and related groups. Again, this is being developed by the NCC - and
> again, we should consider whether there are opportunities for the
> community, or participants within it, to work more actively with the NCC
> on this.
>
> 5. Practical barriers to accessibility
>
> Lack of certain facilities may discourage some people from
> participating. Childcare/creche facilities have already been mentioned
> as an example of a facility that might assist participation. Are there
> others we can think of? Perhaps we should ask the community for ideas.
>
> A few possibilities that spring to my mind (unfiltered for validity,
> viability or good sense):
> - any possible improvements to remote participation?
> - do we consider needs of wheelchair users/other disabilities?
> sufficiently consistently to be relied upon?
> - financial support?
> - consider whether Mon-Fri is always the best choice of days (are we
> doing Sun-Thurs in Dubai??)

Yes, Sunday through Thursday is going to be the norm in Dubai (that
information is highlighted on the meeting page
https://ripe75.ripe.net/ )

> - while I think English is likely to need to remain the working
> language, is there more that can be done to assist those who don't speak
> it proficiently or who lack confidence?

After talking with Osama from MENOG, this is not an issue in Dubai.
In France for RIPE76, the PC is considering local language meetups or
talks as an option.

> - would some potential participants benefit from more direct support in
> persuading their employers to authorise their attendance? (I know the
> ITU offers "letters of invitation"; is that a useful idea? How about
> "Dear boss, Your employee has asked to attend a RIPE meeting. But what
> do you get out of it?")
>
> That's all I've got for now, but I'm sure it's just a start on what we
> might look at to help make this community as welcoming as it can be.
>
> I hope this demonstrates that an agenda based on respect for
> participants as individuals rather than as demographic statistics is a
> positive and active agenda worth supporting.
>

Trying to be more inclusive is not disrespecting individuals or
pandering to demographic statistics.  In fact it's respecting and
celebrating that some individuals may have different needs and not
trying to pretend we are all identical.

Leslie

>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Diversity mailing list
> Diversity at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity