Equity or equality

[Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>]

I've seen these terms used pretty much interchangeably and just noticed our wiki uses the term equality.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820458

Do we care? Are they equivalent?

Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org

Re: Equity or equality

[Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com.INVALID>]

Thanks Craig!

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 8:03 PM Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've read all of the responses to this thread and believe that we have
> consensus that the page should be renamed "Equity, Diversity & Inclusion".
>
> I'll ask Mark to make the change.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
> > On Jul 16, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've seen these terms used pretty much interchangeably and just noticed
> our wiki uses the term equality.
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820458
> >
> > Do we care? Are they equivalent?
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > clr@apache.org
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>

Re: Equity or equality

[Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>]

I've read all of the responses to this thread and believe that we have consensus that the page should be renamed "Equity, Diversity & Inclusion".

I'll ask Mark to make the change.

Regards,

Craig

> On Jul 16, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've seen these terms used pretty much interchangeably and just noticed our wiki uses the term equality.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820458
> 
> Do we care? Are they equivalent?
> 
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
> 

Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org

Re: Equity or equality

[Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com.INVALID>]

Equity is a better term, I was discussing this with the VP of ED&I at
Google and she agreed with this.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:04 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:

> This is the best expiation I've seen:
> https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/
>
> Or this (for the Georg Carlin fans):
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:44 PM Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed 17. Jul 2019 at 00:39, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Do we care? Are they equivalent?
> > >
> > > Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is
> > > treating everyone the same. Equality, while promoting fairness, can
> end up
> > > being unfair, as it assumes that everyone starts at the some position.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ju8stin
>

Re: Equity or equality

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

++1

On 2019/07/18 16:25:15, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> I think that efforts such as Outreachy work well in helping bootstrap
> people to gain their own merit. There are extenuating circumstances
> that seem to prevent people from even making that first step as a
> contributor in the first place whether it be pull requests, bug
> reports, mailing list posts, etc., and identifying and helping fix
> those hurdles could go a long way toward increasing D&I as well as
> encouraging more contributors in general. In the case of Outreachy,
> like GSoC, this targets specific people who are eager and ready to
> learn and work on OSS, though with structured guidance and student
> stipend, regular mentor feedback and review, etc. These efforts should
> hopefully also identify general issues that prevent newcomers from
> contributing to our projects, though this group will likely find more
> information about this from the survey efforts. Similar to how GSoC
> helps mentor and bootstrap university students into the professional
> world of open source software development, Outreachy mentors
> underrepresented people in the same way. This whole positive equity
> building process is one of the big things that really attracted me to
> volunteering with Outreachy in the first place last year.
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 05:51, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I also like that analogy and I think it matches what we are trying to do. We are trying to do all we can to allow for equitable opportunity for all. We need to know what "blockers" there are and what we can do about them. I have no doubt that the Outreachy effort will help with that.
> >
> > The concern I have is ensuring there is a realistic understanding of what equitable opportunity means, and how to implement them, especially as it impacts the concept of merit here at the ASF. Because it is never too early to remind ourselves of some basic tenets, one core idea of the Apache Way and our do-ocracy is that merit (or reward) is dependent upon what you do, not who you are. As such, we should always keep in the back of our minds that such solutions as "you are from an under-represented group and therefore you don't need to earn that much merit" or, conversely, "you are someone with privilege and therefore needs to do a lot more to earn the same amount of merit" will assuredly not stand at the ASF.
> >
> > No, I am not worried about that happening, but just wanted to make sure that this aspect of the Apache Way was known and acknowledged.
> >
> > And the final reminder is understanding that, at the end of the day, not everyone will want to look over the fence. And that's OK. That is not a failure. Some people may simply not be interested in watching whatever is going on over there, no matter how easy it is we make it for them to do so.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > On 2019/07/17 17:03:55, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/17/19 10:52 AM, Michael Mior wrote:
> > > > I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this
> > > > article that goes a little deeper.
> > > >
> > > > http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's a cool extension to the conversation.
> > >
> > > Analogies are ... just analogies. They are not reality. Taking them too
> > > far - their "logical extreme" - always results in problems.
> > >
> > > I do like the extension of the analogy in this article, but even then,
> > > it eventually breaks down.
> > >
> > > The fence, for example, protects us from line drives. :)
> > >
> > > We strive to bring more people to the table, and make the table bigger,
> > > and yet we have angry voices complaining that we'll run out of food. One
> > > of these days, I need to write that "Open Source as pot-luck dinner"
> > > blog post. The more people we bring to the table, the better dinner will be.
> > >
> > > I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by
> > > wanting to have more friends come to dinner.
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> 

Re: Equity or equality

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

I think that efforts such as Outreachy work well in helping bootstrap
people to gain their own merit. There are extenuating circumstances
that seem to prevent people from even making that first step as a
contributor in the first place whether it be pull requests, bug
reports, mailing list posts, etc., and identifying and helping fix
those hurdles could go a long way toward increasing D&I as well as
encouraging more contributors in general. In the case of Outreachy,
like GSoC, this targets specific people who are eager and ready to
learn and work on OSS, though with structured guidance and student
stipend, regular mentor feedback and review, etc. These efforts should
hopefully also identify general issues that prevent newcomers from
contributing to our projects, though this group will likely find more
information about this from the survey efforts. Similar to how GSoC
helps mentor and bootstrap university students into the professional
world of open source software development, Outreachy mentors
underrepresented people in the same way. This whole positive equity
building process is one of the big things that really attracted me to
volunteering with Outreachy in the first place last year.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 05:51, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I also like that analogy and I think it matches what we are trying to do. We are trying to do all we can to allow for equitable opportunity for all. We need to know what "blockers" there are and what we can do about them. I have no doubt that the Outreachy effort will help with that.
>
> The concern I have is ensuring there is a realistic understanding of what equitable opportunity means, and how to implement them, especially as it impacts the concept of merit here at the ASF. Because it is never too early to remind ourselves of some basic tenets, one core idea of the Apache Way and our do-ocracy is that merit (or reward) is dependent upon what you do, not who you are. As such, we should always keep in the back of our minds that such solutions as "you are from an under-represented group and therefore you don't need to earn that much merit" or, conversely, "you are someone with privilege and therefore needs to do a lot more to earn the same amount of merit" will assuredly not stand at the ASF.
>
> No, I am not worried about that happening, but just wanted to make sure that this aspect of the Apache Way was known and acknowledged.
>
> And the final reminder is understanding that, at the end of the day, not everyone will want to look over the fence. And that's OK. That is not a failure. Some people may simply not be interested in watching whatever is going on over there, no matter how easy it is we make it for them to do so.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On 2019/07/17 17:03:55, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/17/19 10:52 AM, Michael Mior wrote:
> > > I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this
> > > article that goes a little deeper.
> > >
> > > http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/
> >
> > Yeah, that's a cool extension to the conversation.
> >
> > Analogies are ... just analogies. They are not reality. Taking them too
> > far - their "logical extreme" - always results in problems.
> >
> > I do like the extension of the analogy in this article, but even then,
> > it eventually breaks down.
> >
> > The fence, for example, protects us from line drives. :)
> >
> > We strive to bring more people to the table, and make the table bigger,
> > and yet we have angry voices complaining that we'll run out of food. One
> > of these days, I need to write that "Open Source as pot-luck dinner"
> > blog post. The more people we bring to the table, the better dinner will be.
> >
> > I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by
> > wanting to have more friends come to dinner.
> >



-- 
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Equity or equality

[Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:24 AM Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> Consciously or not, *_*we_ recruit new people and new projects to ASF. We
> are not (just) the cool stuff on the other side of the fence. We are the
> fence designers and the fence itself (ditto stadium). And we can choose to
> try to be the boxes, or at least try to notice where they could make things
> better.
>

I am really tired of the fence analogy. Why is there a fence to start with?
Because someone is running a business, to provide entertainment that some
people are willing to pay for. Why are we even discussing the people who
wants the product without paying for it?
ASF is not a business that is producing a product with a price that
excludes users (for many more reasons that unable to pay). The analogy of
the cartoon is therefor complete nonsense;

  1. There are no paying customers, no fence for the users. Anyone can be a
viewer and although you need a computer to consume our product, I don't
think anyone is arguing that the really unfortunate, really disadvantaged
(not just "I don't feel good") people, should be assisted.

  2. Baseball is a game with players, and this D&I effort is about "who is
welcome to play". And again, baseball can't let everyone play at the same
time at the same level. We, on the other hand, have no systemic (baseball
rules) issues of whether to allow someone to play or not, OTHER THAN the
willingness to be charitable, eagerness to help out and/or the mental
capacity to handle/tackle the complexity of software (even rudimentary
software is somewhat challenging for many people).

The fact that the analogy applies to businesses (who get to play (employed)
or who get to view (customer)) doesn't mean that has the same relevance to
the ASF.

So please, find a better analogy, rather than harping this broken one. The
potluck dinner is much better, except that the food in each contribution is
unlimited, so not only can the one's bringing the food eat, but anyone else
can just walk in and fill their bellies (and millions of people!!!!)
literally does that.

Niclas

Re: Equity or equality

[Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 3:51 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:

> I also like that analogy and I think it matches what we are trying to do.
> We are trying to do all we can to allow for equitable opportunity for all.
> We need to know what "blockers" there are and what we can do about them. I
> have no doubt that the Outreachy effort will help with that.
>

The concern I have is ensuring there is a realistic understanding of what
> equitable opportunity means, and how to implement them, especially as it
> impacts the concept of merit here at the ASF.


A realistic understanding of what equitable opportunity means would come
not from email threads at the ASF but from experts in that issue (we have
people with varying degrees of expertise, for sure, but collectively we are
not an expert org on this). So to the extent that I want to learn from
those who are better versed in this knowledge, I share your concern. It is
a good idea to gather readings like these and also confer with experts on
specifics when we have some. If we do that for a few years or decades, then
we might become the ones that can help others with our perspective and
experience.

Because it is never too early to remind ourselves of some basic tenets, one
> core idea of the Apache Way and our do-ocracy is that merit (or reward) is
> dependent upon what you do, not who you are. As such, we should always keep
> in the back of our minds that such solutions as "you are from an
> under-represented group and therefore you don't need to earn that much
> merit" or, conversely, "you are someone with privilege and therefore needs
> to do a lot more to earn the same amount of merit" will assuredly not stand
> at the ASF.


> No, I am not worried about that happening, but just wanted to make sure
> that this aspect of the Apache Way was known and acknowledged.
>

I don't believe this has ever been proposed nor even a remote possibility.

This is about the effort _we_ put in. I don't share the perspective that
equity is something allowed by removing blockers. Equity, or lack thereof,
is designed and built and maintained. Like choosing the color of a T-shirt,
there is no such thing as neutral or default. This is another "If you
choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" realm of life.

Consciously or not, *_*we_ recruit new people and new projects to ASF. We
are not (just) the cool stuff on the other side of the fence. We are the
fence designers and the fence itself (ditto stadium). And we can choose to
try to be the boxes, or at least try to notice where they could make things
better. We choose that is where we want to put our thoughts and effort.
That's where The Apache Way comes in - not everyone will want to put their
selves into this and that is fine. Don't subscribe to dev@diversity. If you
do want to put your effort into this, join dev@diversity and help out. If
you don't think other people should be doing that work... the Apache Way
probably has something about that.

And the final reminder is understanding that, at the end of the day, not
> everyone will want to look over the fence. And that's OK. That is not a
> failure. Some people may simply not be interested in watching whatever is
> going on over there, no matter how easy it is we make it for them to do so.
>

Certainly true. This is also not really a problem we face nor one we are
trying to solve.

Kenn




> Cheers!
>
> On 2019/07/17 17:03:55, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/17/19 10:52 AM, Michael Mior wrote:
> > > I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this
> > > article that goes a little deeper.
> > >
> > >
> http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/
> >
> > Yeah, that's a cool extension to the conversation.
> >
> > Analogies are ... just analogies. They are not reality. Taking them too
> > far - their "logical extreme" - always results in problems.
> >
> > I do like the extension of the analogy in this article, but even then,
> > it eventually breaks down.
> >
> > The fence, for example, protects us from line drives. :)
> >
> > We strive to bring more people to the table, and make the table bigger,
> > and yet we have angry voices complaining that we'll run out of food. One
> > of these days, I need to write that "Open Source as pot-luck dinner"
> > blog post. The more people we bring to the table, the better dinner will
> be.
> >
> > I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by
> > wanting to have more friends come to dinner.
> >
>

Re: Equity or equality

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

I also like that analogy and I think it matches what we are trying to do. We are trying to do all we can to allow for equitable opportunity for all. We need to know what "blockers" there are and what we can do about them. I have no doubt that the Outreachy effort will help with that.

The concern I have is ensuring there is a realistic understanding of what equitable opportunity means, and how to implement them, especially as it impacts the concept of merit here at the ASF. Because it is never too early to remind ourselves of some basic tenets, one core idea of the Apache Way and our do-ocracy is that merit (or reward) is dependent upon what you do, not who you are. As such, we should always keep in the back of our minds that such solutions as "you are from an under-represented group and therefore you don't need to earn that much merit" or, conversely, "you are someone with privilege and therefore needs to do a lot more to earn the same amount of merit" will assuredly not stand at the ASF.

No, I am not worried about that happening, but just wanted to make sure that this aspect of the Apache Way was known and acknowledged.

And the final reminder is understanding that, at the end of the day, not everyone will want to look over the fence. And that's OK. That is not a failure. Some people may simply not be interested in watching whatever is going on over there, no matter how easy it is we make it for them to do so.

Cheers!

On 2019/07/17 17:03:55, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> On 7/17/19 10:52 AM, Michael Mior wrote:
> > I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this
> > article that goes a little deeper.
> > 
> > http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/
> 
> Yeah, that's a cool extension to the conversation.
> 
> Analogies are ... just analogies. They are not reality. Taking them too
> far - their "logical extreme" - always results in problems.
> 
> I do like the extension of the analogy in this article, but even then,
> it eventually breaks down.
> 
> The fence, for example, protects us from line drives. :)
> 
> We strive to bring more people to the table, and make the table bigger,
> and yet we have angry voices complaining that we'll run out of food. One
> of these days, I need to write that "Open Source as pot-luck dinner"
> blog post. The more people we bring to the table, the better dinner will be.
> 
> I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by
> wanting to have more friends come to dinner.
> 

Re: Equity or equality

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

FTR: I don't think it is far lumping all those who are expressing contrary opinions as doing so via "anger and outrage", nor implying the reason for such anger and outrage as them not wanting more friends to come to dinner. There are people who are deeply supportive of the effort and simply have serious concerns about the process (oh that word! :) )

Saying so diminishes those who have a valid point, I think, and makes it easy to discount those who express concerns or contrary opinions.

Cheers

On 2019/07/17 17:03:55, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by
> wanting to have more friends come to dinner.
> 

Re: Equity or equality

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On 7/17/19 10:52 AM, Michael Mior wrote:
> I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this
> article that goes a little deeper.
> 
> http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

Yeah, that's a cool extension to the conversation.

Analogies are ... just analogies. They are not reality. Taking them too
far - their "logical extreme" - always results in problems.

I do like the extension of the analogy in this article, but even then,
it eventually breaks down.

The fence, for example, protects us from line drives. :)

We strive to bring more people to the table, and make the table bigger,
and yet we have angry voices complaining that we'll run out of food. One
of these days, I need to write that "Open Source as pot-luck dinner"
blog post. The more people we bring to the table, the better dinner will be.

I am saddened by all of the anger and outrage that is generated by
wanting to have more friends come to dinner.

Re: Equity or equality

[Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org>]

I'm familiar with that cartoon although I recently came across this
article that goes a little deeper.

http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

--
Michael Mior
mmior@apache.org

Le mar. 16 juil. 2019 à 19:04, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> a écrit :
>
> This is the best expiation I've seen:
> https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/
>
> Or this (for the Georg Carlin fans):
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:44 PM Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed 17. Jul 2019 at 00:39, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Do we care? Are they equivalent?
> > >
> > > Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is
> > > treating everyone the same. Equality, while promoting fairness, can end up
> > > being unfair, as it assumes that everyone starts at the some position.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ju8stin

Re: Equity or equality

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

This is the best expiation I've seen:
https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/

Or this (for the Georg Carlin fans):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:44 PM Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Wed 17. Jul 2019 at 00:39, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Do we care? Are they equivalent?
> >
> > Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is
> > treating everyone the same. Equality, while promoting fairness, can end up
> > being unfair, as it assumes that everyone starts at the some position.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ju8stin

Re: Equity or equality

[Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>]

+1

On Wed 17. Jul 2019 at 00:39, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Do we care? Are they equivalent?
>
> Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is
> treating everyone the same. Equality, while promoting fairness, can end up
> being unfair, as it assumes that everyone starts at the some position.
>
> Thanks,
> Ju8stin

Re: Equity or equality

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Do we care? Are they equivalent?

Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality, while promoting fairness, can end up being unfair, as it assumes that everyone starts at the some position.

Thanks,
Ju8stin