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

Afternoon,

On 07/07/2017 16:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> On 07/07/2017 15:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> 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
> 
> I think your idea of "progress" presumes the answer.
> 
> If you believe the goal is - as one participant espoused - to increase
> the level of female participation until 50% of RIPE participants are
> female (or more?), then measuring progress against this target is likely
> to help achieve it.

More than one. It's a great goal.

> However, if you believe that even having such a target is inappropriate,
> divisive and (frankly) another form of bigotry, and that the appropriate
> action from RIPE is to ensure that all participants are welcomed and
> respected regardless of their sex, then establishing such measurements
> pushes us down the wrong track. It also diverts attention from what
> should actually be done.

Well, a) how can espousing that things like the operation of the
Internet should involve a relatively even split of humanity be divisive?
I don't understand the objection here.

But also, we can do more than one thing at a time. We can measure *and*
welcome. But equally we should be encouraging and enabling, not just
welcoming.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> The implication here appears to be that we should have one target for
> RIPE meetings held in Amsterdam and another for RIPE meetings held in
> Dubai. I would regard this as indicating a weakness in the concept of
> targeting.

This is complex. 72 (or whatever) countries with vastly different
cultures. We do what we can. We focus on the RIPE community and change
the world by our actions. We don't try to change the world.

>> 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. 
> 
> Intersectionality as a doctrine is closely associated with allegations
> that Western societies are riddled with oppression, often that they are
> uniquely oppressive (or at least that it is inappropriate to apply
> similar standards of critique to non-Western societies). It was invented
> for the purpose of "critique" of such alleged oppression, the latter
> term being used as a label for a form of hybrid between analysis and
> activism, where the analysis justifies the activism and the activism
> requires outcome-oriented (i.e. prejudiced) analysis.

This is stunning derailing, Malcolm, sorry. Intersectionality is the
concept that various forms of oppression & bigotry are all interlinked
and, well, intersectional. It also recognises that the experience of a
cis white woman is very different to that of a trans white woman and
both of them will have a different experience to a cis or trans woman of
colour (honestly regardless of location on the world - different, not
necessarily better or worse). All of these groups will also have
different experiences depending on their sexuality or social standing or
any of a number of other factors. It is, in my opinion, a vital thing to
take into account when looking at diversity.

> Examples of alleged forms of oppression include the one called
> "patriarchy" (which apparently claims that that all men are inherently
> part of an oppression system, a variant on "original sin"), that
> capitalism and property ownership are a form of white supremacy
> oppression, and other equally offensive doctrines. Needless to say, the
> targets of such accusations frequently consider such claims hurtful and
> unjust, and many who are not so targeted still regard them as political
> and aggressive.

I do not believe that talking about the patriarchy (from which you and I
both benefit immensely) is extreme or alleged. We can, of course, debate
it for ages, but I don't feel that would be a useful use of our time or
this mailing list. I certainly don't consider them offensive doctrines.
I consider them facts of life that we need to examine and try to break
down. Unless you're using your power actively for oppression then you
aren't being evil, but we must examine what we get out of situations,
how we benefit and how we can change the world to make it better for
everyone.

> Of course, not every use of the term intersectionality implies the
> speaker endorses all the extreme theories with which it is sometimes
> coupled. But given its provenance its use would inevitably going to
> provoke and anger, even if not intended. That is why I recommended the
> term be avoided.

I'm still not sure what term we should use instead, of course, nor why
we should try to invent ones where perfectly good terms already exist.

Brian