Jaice Singer DuMars <jaice@...>
Let's do the best we can, knowing it will be flawed, and get better over time.
Thanks. As a Jewish (and raised before we were as widely viewed as “white”) white-skinned not entirely cis queer person, I wonder whether we need to compete for the allotted seats at the table, but also focus on more seats.
I am specifically concerned on a recent workplace issue that focused on someone’s behavior but refused to engage with it through the window of the person’s neuroatypicality and make accommodations that could have prevented or
mitigated the situation. This is not rare in the industry and community, and labeling people as “assholes” is not really an appropriate response. This is not specifically a representation issue, but it is a serious blind spit in communities. (And that sentence
itself is probably problematic...)
On May 30, 2019, at 8:26 AM, Jaice Singer DuMars < jaice@...> wrote:
As a Jewish, white-skinned, gender non-conforming individual, I understand. I would give up my place at the table, however, for a person of color or other under-represented person. Yes, there's a spectrum, but reduction in this specific case
is a reasonable compromise.
(Though I would say that stating the issue solely as “white” and “men” is reductive in the gender issue, ignores the heteronormativity, and ignores physical, developmental, and other disability.)
+1 for this +1.
+1 as well, and glad to see this conversation moving forward.
One point I want to make absolutely clear is that diversity does not mean "corporate diversity" or "diversity of thought" or any other form of
diversity that means the room is all white men and still considered "diverse".
Also, huge +1 to expanding recruiting efforts to under-represented people. We should be bringing in new contributors to SIGs, and using these as great opportunities for people to learn about problem domains without the triggering aspects of first-time
technical contributions.
+1 and a comment:
It has seemed to me so far that the term “diversity” at CNCF is widely assumed to mean “more, and more equitable representation of, women.” I attended a diversity session at Seattle, for instance, and while it was not described with any qualifiers, it
was almost exclusively about making the workplace and work policies more amenable to women with children, and the panel was all white and Asian women.
There are many other aspects - non-white/Asian people, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities - whose lack of centering affect both our workplaces and our work in significant and destructive ways. While the situation of women is hugely important in the
industry and the community, it is not the only aspect of diversity to be concerned about.
On May 30, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Augustus < Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1!!
On Thu, May 30, 2019, 07:29 Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Alexis just shared an idea with me that I think is so great that I wanted to act immediately! This comes out of discussions with several folks at KubeCon and elsewhere about how we can improve diversity at all levels of the community.
Now that we’ve formalised the existence of CNCF SIGs, they’re a great place to scale out the diversity effort. Let's add to the CNCF SIG requirements that they need to have initiatives in place to actively encourage diversity (of all sorts) within their activities.
The goal should be nurturing a more diverse range of people into positions like SIG Tech Leads and Chairs, and other SIG-specific roles (e.g. taking part in security assessments in SIG security). The SIG Chairs would need to assume the responsibility to make
sure this is happening.
Thoughts & ideas?
Liz
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
--
|
|
Jaice
Singer DuMars
Cloud
Native Strategy
+1 (206)
371-2293
601 N.
34th St., Seattle WA 98103
|
|
