An interesting diversity policy link...

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

http://www.associationforum.org/resources/practiceDetail.asp?objectID=816

was something I tripped over looking for resources for our PMC participant
ethics policy.  Enjoy.

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>]

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> 
> Defining "diversity" seems risky. I was impressed by the extremely
> careful wording in the www.associationforum.org link : "Diversity may be
> defined in many ways, including but not limited to ...". You don't want
> to risk leaving anyone out! At the simpler end, Debian's Social Contract
> references "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", which says broadly
> "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> persons." [2]
> 
> Not defining "diversity" is also risky -- people will read it from their
> own viewpoint and not really understand key issues that might be
> unfamiliar, such as the importance of an Apache project moving forward
> even if an individual or company leaves the project.
> 

What are you advocating then?

geir

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>]

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> 
>   "* Demonstrate an active and diverse development community
>    * The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor
> (there's at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
> single company or entity that is vital to the success of the project)"
> 
> As written, these are distinct requirements and nothing suggests that
> the second bullet is a refinement of "diverse" in the first -- and it
> leaves completely open what "diverse" in that first bullet means.
> 
> The second bullet could be changed like this to clarify:
> 
>    By "diverse development community" we mean that the project is not
> highly dependent on any single contributor (there's at least 3 legally
> independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is
> vital to the success of the project)
> 
> If that seems like a good change, I can propose it on general@i.a.o and
> put that change in place.

That works for me.

> 
>>> Company affiliations by the committer base is a different ball of wax --
>>> homogeneous is counter-productive, heterogeneous is required.
>> I like the way I think it's phrased now - "legally independent", because
>> "company affiliation" doesn't quite cut it - look at the web of
>> relationships w/in Geronomo, for example :)
> 
> I think "legally independent" is a good short description, but assumes
> that the broader context for "legally" has been introduced somewhere.
> The Incubator wording "there is no single company or entity that is
> vital" and the How It Works "The "community of individuals affiliated to
> unrelated entities" both provide the additional needed context.

Define 'vital'. :)  I think that we have to be careful about how deep of
a rathole we get here - this is why these are guidelines rather than
rules, and at th end of the day, it's the humans on the PMC that get to
make the final decision, situation by situation....

geir

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Defining "diversity" seems risky. I was impressed by the extremely
>>>>careful wording in the www.associationforum.org link : "Diversity may be
>>>>defined in many ways, including but not limited to ...". You don't want
>>>>to risk leaving anyone out! At the simpler end, Debian's Social Contract
>>>>references "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", which says broadly
>>>>"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
>>>>persons." [2]
>>>>
>>>>Not defining "diversity" is also risky -- people will read it from their
>>>>own viewpoint and not really understand key issues that might be
>>>>unfamiliar, such as the importance of an Apache project moving forward
>>>>even if an individual or company leaves the project.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What are you advocating?
>>
>>I'd advocate that we carefully consider how we use the word "diversity".
>>
>>And thinking about this some more, I think I'd suggest avoiding
>>"diversity" when referring to the requirement for a project to have
>>committers with different company affiliations because the baggage of
>>the "diversity" word dilutes a sound guideline that the Incubator makes
>>mandatory. It dilutes it because of people's assumptions about what
>>diversity means.
> 
> I think that "diversity" has a very clear definition as "variety", and
> to me anyway, we've always been clear with respect to "variety of what".

I'll argue that the "variety of what" isn't clear -- at least it wasn't
to me two years ago when Derby entered the Incubator and I suspect it
isn't clear to some new people coming in now. And I'll admit that I
really didn't get it until Derby's first attempt to graduate stalled
because there weren't enough legally independent committers.  :-)

The "How It Works" page [1] is excellent overall, but I'll pick on it a
little anyhow.

In the "A bit of history" section, it doesn't say from whence came the
"group of people" that called themselves the Apache Group. They could
have been from legally independent entities -- or not. It doesn't say.
So there's no context for the first occurrence of "diverse" in the
Meritocracy section with "... the Apache Web Server ... started as a
diverse group of people ..."  Since there's no context for "diverse"
yet, it's open to the reader's interpretation.

We next find a reference to diversity in the "The Foundation structure"
section: "In order to reduce friction and allow for diversity to emerge,
rather than forcing a monoculture from the top, ..." But there's still
no context for what "diversity" means.

The next mention, three quarters of the way through the page, is in the
section "The Foundation Incubator":

  "The incubation period normally serves to estimate whether or not:

    * the project is able to increase the diversity of its committer
base and to play with the meritocratic rules of the foundation."

A couple paragraphs later the phrase "diversity of its committer base"
gets defined as "a community of individuals affiliated to unrelated
entities".

So finally a definition towards the bottom of the page links diversity
to "entity affiliation".

>  I don't want to avoid the term because in other areas of human
> endeavour  the "variety of what" refers to gender, sexual orientation,
> or race, none of which is relevant what we are looking for in community
> diversity in the incubator.

Even in the Incubator docs "diversity of what" isn't clear. In fact, the
exit requirements [2] seem to separate "diversity" from the "3 legally
independent committer" rule. Under the "Meritocracy/Community" category,
here are the first two bullets:

  "* Demonstrate an active and diverse development community
   * The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor
(there's at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
single company or entity that is vital to the success of the project)"

As written, these are distinct requirements and nothing suggests that
the second bullet is a refinement of "diverse" in the first -- and it
leaves completely open what "diverse" in that first bullet means.

The second bullet could be changed like this to clarify:

   By "diverse development community" we mean that the project is not
highly dependent on any single contributor (there's at least 3 legally
independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is
vital to the success of the project)

If that seems like a good change, I can propose it on general@i.a.o and
put that change in place.

>>Company affiliations by the committer base is a different ball of wax --
>>homogeneous is counter-productive, heterogeneous is required.
> 
> I like the way I think it's phrased now - "legally independent", because
> "company affiliation" doesn't quite cut it - look at the web of
> relationships w/in Geronomo, for example :)

I think "legally independent" is a good short description, but assumes
that the broader context for "legally" has been introduced somewhere.
The Incubator wording "there is no single company or entity that is
vital" and the How It Works "The "community of individuals affiliated to
unrelated entities" both provide the additional needed context.

-jean

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
[2]
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Exit+Requirements

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>]

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Defining "diversity" seems risky. I was impressed by the extremely
>>> careful wording in the www.associationforum.org link : "Diversity may be
>>> defined in many ways, including but not limited to ...". You don't want
>>> to risk leaving anyone out! At the simpler end, Debian's Social Contract
>>> references "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", which says broadly
>>> "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
>>> persons." [2]
>>>
>>> Not defining "diversity" is also risky -- people will read it from their
>>> own viewpoint and not really understand key issues that might be
>>> unfamiliar, such as the importance of an Apache project moving forward
>>> even if an individual or company leaves the project.
>>>
>> What are you advocating?
> 
> I'd advocate that we carefully consider how we use the word "diversity".
> 
> And thinking about this some more, I think I'd suggest avoiding
> "diversity" when referring to the requirement for a project to have
> committers with different company affiliations because the baggage of
> the "diversity" word dilutes a sound guideline that the Incubator makes
> mandatory. It dilutes it because of people's assumptions about what
> diversity means.

I think that "diversity" has a very clear definition as "variety", and
to me anyway, we've always been clear with respect to "variety of what".
 I don't want to avoid the term because in other areas of human
endeavour  the "variety of what" refers to gender, sexual orientation,
or race, none of which is relevant what we are looking for in community
diversity in the incubator.

> 
> I think we'd all agree that a mix of different groups, including but not
> limited to :-) region and cultures and genders and religion, brings
> talent to Apache projects that is truly valued. 

Sure, but I have no interest in codifying anything like that in our
incubator governance process.

> I can't imagine
> deliberately excluding a particular group and believe most
> misunderstandings are based on lack of familiarity with another group.

Agreed.

> And I also can't imagine the Incubator forming a rule that, for example,
> says "a podling won't graduate from the Incubator unless it has at least
> 3 non-English speaking committers".

Agreed.

> 
> Company affiliations by the committer base is a different ball of wax --
> homogeneous is counter-productive, heterogeneous is required.

I like the way I think it's phrased now - "legally independent", because
"company affiliation" doesn't quite cut it - look at the web of
relationships w/in Geronomo, for example :)

geir

> 
>  -jean
> 
> 

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> 
>>Defining "diversity" seems risky. I was impressed by the extremely
>>careful wording in the www.associationforum.org link : "Diversity may be
>>defined in many ways, including but not limited to ...". You don't want
>>to risk leaving anyone out! At the simpler end, Debian's Social Contract
>>references "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", which says broadly
>>"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
>>persons." [2]
>>
>>Not defining "diversity" is also risky -- people will read it from their
>>own viewpoint and not really understand key issues that might be
>>unfamiliar, such as the importance of an Apache project moving forward
>>even if an individual or company leaves the project.
>>
> What are you advocating?

I'd advocate that we carefully consider how we use the word "diversity".

And thinking about this some more, I think I'd suggest avoiding
"diversity" when referring to the requirement for a project to have
committers with different company affiliations because the baggage of
the "diversity" word dilutes a sound guideline that the Incubator makes
mandatory. It dilutes it because of people's assumptions about what
diversity means.

I think we'd all agree that a mix of different groups, including but not
limited to :-) region and cultures and genders and religion, brings
talent to Apache projects that is truly valued. I can't imagine
deliberately excluding a particular group and believe most
misunderstandings are based on lack of familiarity with another group.
And I also can't imagine the Incubator forming a rule that, for example,
says "a podling won't graduate from the Incubator unless it has at least
3 non-English speaking committers".

Company affiliations by the committer base is a different ball of wax --
homogeneous is counter-productive, heterogeneous is required.

 -jean

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>]

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> 
> Defining "diversity" seems risky. I was impressed by the extremely
> careful wording in the www.associationforum.org link : "Diversity may be
> defined in many ways, including but not limited to ...". You don't want
> to risk leaving anyone out! At the simpler end, Debian's Social Contract
> references "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", which says broadly
> "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> persons." [2]
> 
> Not defining "diversity" is also risky -- people will read it from their
> own viewpoint and not really understand key issues that might be
> unfamiliar, such as the importance of an Apache project moving forward
> even if an individual or company leaves the project.
> 

What are you advocating?

geir

Re: An interesting diversity policy link...

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://www.associationforum.org/resources/practiceDetail.asp?objectID=816
> 
> was something I tripped over looking for resources for our PMC participant
> ethics policy.  Enjoy.

I'm left chuckling at myself because last November I gave a talk about
Open Source for the Society of Women Engineers (I also introduced
Apache, hoping to get college women involved). I mentioned the
importance of "diversity" to Apache communities. A month later, at the
women's BOF at ApacheCon in San Diego, somebody asked if Apache had a
diversity statement and I answered "Oh, yes!", still being tunnel
visioned on the talk I had done at SWE.

In these two contexts, SWE and the Women's BOF, you'd expect the
referenced diversity statement to have at least a little something to do
with women. But, in fact, the "How It Works" documentation [1] has a
different spin on "diversity" (not clearly defined in that page imho)
which targets the needs of the Apache environment -- and rightfully so.
I had meant to post a followup after the San Diego BOF, so here's my
opportunity.

If somebody reads the general@incubator.apache.org archives, I think
they'll clearly understand that what Apache means by "diversity" is
participation by people from independent *work*-related entities
(different companies, independent consultants, contributors working in
their off hours). And this is, indeed, key to the long-term stability of
Apache projects for the very reasons stated in "How It Works" [1].
Nobody wants a project to come to a grinding halt if one individual
leaves or one company withdraws its people.

If somebody doesn't read the general@incubator.apache.org archives, or
does read it but is momentarily tunnel visioned on another project as I
was with SWE :-), they might interpret "diversity" according to their
own context: perhaps gender by women, foreign language by those who
aren't native English speakers, culture by those from non-Western
regions of the world, etc.

Defining "diversity" seems risky. I was impressed by the extremely
careful wording in the www.associationforum.org link : "Diversity may be
defined in many ways, including but not limited to ...". You don't want
to risk leaving anyone out! At the simpler end, Debian's Social Contract
references "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", which says broadly
"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons." [2]

Not defining "diversity" is also risky -- people will read it from their
own viewpoint and not really understand key issues that might be
unfamiliar, such as the importance of an Apache project moving forward
even if an individual or company leaves the project.

 -jean


[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract