[diversity] Experiences from the Django community

Hi Malcom,

I'd like to address your point that "Erik is not the only participant to 
have spoken against the principle of equality."

Erik said that "We can not treat everyone the same". That doesn't mean 
that we won't treat everyone as equal. You seem to be confusing "same" 
and "equal".

2 + 2 is equal to 1 + 3, but it is not the same.

When a conference organiser is giving a solution 2 + 2 (figuratively 
speaking) to the participants, it might only work for 70%. If then the 
organiser also offers solution 1 + 3, this is NOT discriminating against 
the 70%, but only treating the remaining 30% equally.

This is why there are special lines for disabled people at airports. It 
is not the same treatment as the rest, but it tries to put them at equal 
footing. Even though this is different treatment, this is not 
discrimination against other people.

My 2 cents.
Gergana


On 14/07/17 05:11, Malcolm Hutty 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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??)
> - 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?
> - 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.
> 
>