[diversity] Options for gender on meeting registration

Hey Shane,

On 02/06/17 10:02, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Amanda & everyone else,
>
> At 2017-06-01 12:05:00 +0200
> Amanda Gowland <agowland at ripe.net> wrote:
>
>> We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software
>> in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard
>> deadline) if we want to have something in place.
>>
>> It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what
>> do we want to include? One suggestion:
>>
>> What is your gender?*
>>
>> ☐  Female
>>
>> ☐  Male
>>
>> ☐  Non-binary/ third gender
>>
>> ☐  Prefer to self-describe _________________
>>
>> ☐  Prefer not to say
>>
>> *And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking
>> this question:
>>
>> "We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE
>> Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we
>> need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric
>> benchmarking."
>>
>> Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our
>> discussion with the developers.
> Our approach should depend on whether we care about gender data or
> diversity data.
>
> --------
>
> My initial idea was to gather gender data, as an initial proxy for
> diversity data. The recommendation that I received was three options:
>
> * Female
> * Male
> * Fill-in-the-blank ("self-described" above
>
> If we focus on gender data, I would prefer that making any choice be
> opt-in, rather than "prefer not to say" be a 4th choice. So, the UI
> might look something like:
>
> [ ] Provide optional gender information [why this is important pop-up]
>      ( ) Female
>      ( ) Male
>      ( ) ________________
>
> I don't know enough about gender issues to say whether having a
> non-binary/third-gender option is a good idea, but on the face of it
> keeping it as simple as possible makes sense to me.
The suggestion I put forward was the result of some research into the 
best (most respectful, inclusive) way to ask the question in surveys. 
Simplicity is doable, but I just want to make sure that we don't 
sacrifice inclusion for simplicity.
>
> I recognize that a fill-in-the-blank field will complicate statistics,
> but I think it is probably the best that we can do.
>
> --------
>
> Alternately, we may decide that we should look at diversity instead of
> gender. This approach was suggested during the workshop that we had
> before RIPE 74. The idea is more like this:
>
> [ ] I consider myself a part of an under-represented group at RIPE
>      (Check all that apply.) [why this is important pop-up]
>      [ ] Gender
>          ( ) Female
>          ( ) Male
>          ( ) _________________
>          ( ) Prefer not to say
>      [ ] Sexual orientation
>      [ ] Religion
>      [ ] Race or ethnic origin
>      [ ] _____________________
>
> This can gather gender statistics, but also provides some insight into
> how many people think they are under-represented and for what reason.
>
> I pulled the proposed list here from the RIPE Code of Conduct. I am in
> no way wedded to it, and take no offense if you think it is crap.
I think we need to have a discussion about the pros/cons of having the 
question worded this way.

My preference would be to limit the question to gender for RIPE 75 so at 
least we can start and then expand to other aspects of 
diversity/inclusion when we have more time to figure out the best way to 
phrase the question.
>
> Note that some people may prefer to say that they are in an
> under-represented gender but not wish to provide any more information.
> So the "Prefer not to say" option returns, in a slightly different
> context.
>
> --------
>
> What is important is that we try to collect data in a way that we can
> maintain a series over time and have a reasonable comparison between
> meetings. That means we should try to get it right. :)
>
> We has assumed that we would NOT be able to add this for RIPE 75,
> because of the short timelines involved in the software. If we think it
> is important, then we can go for it. I am not sure that we can get it
> correct today. :( I'm happy to join a call/chat later today or early
> next week if that makes sense. (Not Monday though, because it's a
> public holiday here and I'm on a long weekend away. I'm surprised at
> the Monday hard deadline since I expected that the RIPE NCC would be
> off on Monday too!)
We're not working on Monday either, Martina wanted us to have the 
content ready for Tuesday when she meets with SWE so that they can let 
us know what's possible. So, it's not guaranteed that we can have 
anything in place for RIPE 75...but certainly keeping the question 
limited in scope (for now) will give us more of a chance of having 
something in place at all.
>
> Finally, I think that RIPE 75 will be an unusual RIPE meeting in terms
> of the groups that attend due to the location (Dubai). Certainly we
> expect a lot more Muslims than usual, for example. I am not sure if
> that makes it more important or less important to collect diversity
> information though....
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane