[diversity] [Ext] Notes from the RIPE Diversity Task Force on-line meeting, 27.6.2017

Hi,

These are interesting notes.

While I have not attended a RIPE meeting for a while, I would like to see RIPE sustain its success and agree that it can't do that if is not diverse.

I know that there was some pushback against measurements and targets. However, I think it is impossible to make progress unless you measure and have a goal to work towards. As such, I would strongly support a set of diversity measurements based around a number of key criteria:

- Age
- Gender
- National origin and/or country of residence

Measurement should take place at each RIPE meeting. I also think you should consider applying the measurements to each WG, so that you know if there is a problem in one WG versus the others.

The notes suggested benchmarking against a technology industry norm of 15%. I agree that relevant external comparisons are important, but I think you need to be careful to make sure that the comparison *is* relevant. Where does this 15% number come from and is it the same across the RIPE region? Do all countries see similar levels of female participation? If there is a difference why is there a difference?

Ideally, the target for diversity should reflect the proportion of suitably qualified people. I don't know what this is.

And this gets me to my main point, which is that I would like to see some analysis of the reason for the problem. RIPE must recruit from organizations that run networks, develop Internet technologies, and so on. What proportion of their technical employees are women? And what proportion of those women are in a position to attend a RIPE meeting? Attending a RIPE meeting is likely to cost an economy flight, a couple of cab trips, a hotel stay, a bunch of meals and maybe a visa application. That is a relatively large amount of discretionary spending. Do the women and other underrepresented groups in RIPE's target organizations have access to travel budgets? If they don't, then your approach needs to be radically different than if they do.

By the way, I had heard the term intersectionality before but did not really know what it means. I have now looked at the Wikipedia article on it and don't understand why it would be controversial. However, I think that as a political theory jargon word it is unlikely to be widely understood, so you should consider alternative wording.

Kind regards,

Leo

-----Original Message-----
From: Diversity [mailto:diversity-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vesna Manojlovic
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 5:36 AM
To: diversity at ripe.net
Subject: [Ext] [diversity] Notes from the RIPE Diversity Task Force on-line meeting, 27.6.2017

RIPE Diversity Task Force (on-line meeting, 27.6. 10:30 CEST)

1. Introduction of (new) members/volunteers ===============

Participants were asked what brought them to this Task Force, what is there background and how do they want to contribute.

Denesh Bhabuta (UKNOF / DNS-OARC): wants to learn from the RIPE Community; could possibly bring efforts back into other communities / conferences; also has a personal interest, as a father of a daughter.

Donal Cunningham (HEAnet): notices that at most technical conferences he is surrounded by white males, and is interested in fixing that problem.

Malcolm Hutty (LINX): background in Internet Governance and community organisations; was prompted by the the feedback at RIPE74, which was mostly welcoming the efforts to increase breadth of participation, but the comment was repeatedly made from the floor that RIPE participants "do not support diversity for diversity's sake", and he would like to address the concerns that underlie such a comment.

Gergana Petrova (RIPE NCC / RACI): finds diversity an important issue; it's challenging to work on it without offending anyone; wants to work on improving the current situation.

Brian Nisbet (HEAnet): is active in working on the issues of increasing diversity, and wants to contribute to it in RIPE Community (also PC "representative" and WG co-chair)

Amanda Gowland (RIPE NCC): non-techie, helping organise these technical conferences; can help with writing (working as Technical Writer)

Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC): used to be an engineer, then trainer & now Community Builder; exposed to lack of diversity in hackers community, and helped addressing the issues there; wants to exchange experiences between them & RIPE community.

Shane Kerr: interested in the topic of  increasing diversity; did the measuring to find out what the actual situation is. (also WG co-chair)

2. Discussing the draft charter
===============
A suggested draft charter was on the Etherpad.  Malcolm Hutty made the most substantial recommendations on how to modify it and was asked to clarify his suggestions:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__etherpad.tools.ietf.org-3A9000_p_ripe-2Ddiversity-2Dtf-2D2017&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=KZqUDCK_u_ZgaGEDpUv1N1usgdw_XNj-e1m0UuR3QoI&s=kLZEjBagns6cI9d5KS6doAYQBftW1pMomZhGVMWu6TY&e= 

Malcolm said he thinks we should be careful not to be too political, but remain practical, and focus on the concrete actions. He added that we should strive towards increasing accessibility for everyone, instead of singling out specific groups and that we should be welcoming to everyone, regardless of differences.

Gergana said she suggests to be more than just "welcoming”. Instead we should be "inviting" and "encouraging".

Denesh noted that with the introduction of the RIPE Meeting Code of Contact, the RIPE NCC has already started the overall inclusion programme; now are are moving to the next steps.

Shane was wondering why Malcolm also objected to using metrics.

Malcolm responded that we should focus on individuals, and not divide people based on demographics or other grouping methods.

Brian commented that no matter what, there are clear differences that place all people into certain groups.

Malcolm said that he thinks we should not explicitly exclude anyone, and not do any active discrimination, but instead we should remove the reasons for individuals not taking part.

Amanda asked Malcolm what he thinks the reasons are that RIPE's representation of women within the community is 5%, while the "tech industry" female participation rate is 15%?

Malcolm thinks that we should investigate whether there are systemic reasons in RIPE's own practices and approaches that inhibit women from participating, and if so seek to address them. But we also need to be open to individual agency, and so setting any particular target for gender balance is inappropriate.

Brian asked for clarification and wondered if Malcom means that "they are just not interested in taking part"? He thinks that we have passed that stage of discussing *if* there is a lack of diversity within RIPE Community - we are now working under the agreement that there *is* a need for increasing diversity.

Donal added that it has been shown that companies with more diverse boards have greater "return on investment". Also, for our focus group, since we have limited resources (such as time and attention) , we need to choose which actions will be helpful to most people; therefore, we should focus on _groups_ rather than on individuals.

Malcolm asked what is the meant by "under-represented groups" - and what would be the goal of balancing the "over-represented" and "under-represented"?

Vesna: (long story...) 50%

Malcolm said that he doesn’t think this is an acceptable goal, it is artificial and numerical; our goal should be for everyone to feel welcome and respected enough to take part, as individuals, and not as part of a grouping.

Donal suggested that the RIPE community could commit to, at first, have at least *the same* ratio of female participation as the technical industry; and later, maybe, to even go for 50%.

Vesna closed this agenda topic and suggested to continue to wordsmith the charter on the list.

3. Actions & milestones
===============

Amanda reported that one of the suggested actions was to get more metrics. The registration for RIPE 75 will open soon, and there will be an opt-in question added at the end of the registration form. The text was shared on the diversity list and on RIPE Labs. The data collection was made as anonymous as possible (opt-in, collected by the 3rd party, no personal info requested, IP-tracking disabled) in order to minimise the danger for the participants.

The goal is to collect at least some data about gender ratios of participation, in order to measure, over time, if our actions have improved the situation.

Vesna added that furthermore, we can always repeat the analysis Shane did before RIPE 74 (based on  public registration data  and participant’s names.

Shane confirmed that he would be willing to runt his again..

Action on Shane to repeat the analysis for RIPE 73 and RIPE74 participants, and share the results with the list.

Amanda said that a new idea is to invite one of the women who lead the diversity workshop before RIPE 74 to submit a talk proposal for RIPE 75, on why diversity is important (this has been done in the meantime).

Amanda also said that the RIPE NCC is investigating on-site child-care options for RIPE 76.

Denesh noted that as a conferences organiser, he has been asked by female participants about policies for the breastfeeding in public.
Since they want  to be as inclusive as possible, they said that this is not a problem.

Vesna asked if they have been looking into providing a separate room, for those women who prefer the privacy & comfort (for nursing), rather then accessibility & inclusion? But having a separate room might be a logistical challenge.

Denesh responded that they always have a separate space available, for various purposes, so that can also be used for nursing in private.

Donal volunteered to take on the suggestion of contacting Aaron Hughes, to work on the "mentoring" programme for newcomers.

4. Scheduling next meeting:
===============

Next meeting: sometime in August.

Here is the poll for dates & times:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dudle.inf.tu-2Ddresden.de_RIPE-5FDiversity-5FTF-5FAugust-5F2017_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=KZqUDCK_u_ZgaGEDpUv1N1usgdw_XNj-e1m0UuR3QoI&s=XcsTETgNLzPHAkbupCgW7hshKBg3wYBEXOqBY2wNlUA&e= 


5. New actions:
===============

Shane: re-run metrics
Donal: contact Aaron Hughes
All: work further on the charter
Someone? : come up with the numbers of "tech industry gender ratio"
Vesna: admin: send notes; schedule next meeting




_______________________________________________
Diversity mailing list
Diversity at ripe.net
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman_listinfo_diversity&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=KZqUDCK_u_ZgaGEDpUv1N1usgdw_XNj-e1m0UuR3QoI&s=fwKex4YX_xIZ7NcO1Pig82YzO2Q0I_KIySPl3Xk9oEo&e= 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/diversity/attachments/20170707/47ecc938/attachment.p7s>