Virtual Inclusion Summit (was: Re: Rename offensive terminology (master))

Virtual Inclusion Summit (was: Re: Rename offensive terminology (master))

[Emily Shaffer]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:30:31PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Encouraged by Emily in #git-devel (who pointed out that a subject like
> this is much better discussed seeing each others faces and hearing each
> others voices), I would like to organize another Virtual Contributor
> Summit, this time focused on inclusive language in Git, what we can do
> about it, and what we should do about it (or not).
> 
> Tentatively, I would like to propose having this meeting in the coming
> week, via Zoom, just like we did the Virtual Contributor Summit last
> September.
> 
> Could I ask all interested parties to reply to this email?

The Google contingent is interested in attending.

One note I'd like to make is that the Git community already suffers from
a lack of diversity; it will be hard for us to make meaningful changes
if just those of us who already contribute attend, because many of us -
myself included! - come from privilege and don't have much or any
firsthand experience with microaggressions (or overt discrimination). I
think it's a good idea to expand the attendance of this summit beyond
the current contributor base and try to include more diverse voices and
experts in building inclusive products.

To that end, I'm going to see what kind of interested parties we can
find to invite within Google - and I hope others will do the same within
their own network. I think the risk of us coming up with meaningless
changes far outweighs the risk of us having too many people in the Zoom
call. :)

 - Emily

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Junio C Hamano]

Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:

> One note I'd like to make is that the Git community already suffers from
> a lack of diversity; it will be hard for us to make meaningful changes
> if just those of us who already contribute attend, because many of us -
> myself included! - come from privilege and don't have much or any
> firsthand experience with microaggressions (or overt discrimination). I
> think it's a good idea to expand the attendance of this summit beyond
> the current contributor base and try to include more diverse voices and
> experts in building inclusive products.
>
> To that end, I'm going to see what kind of interested parties we can
> find to invite within Google - and I hope others will do the same within
> their own network. I think the risk of us coming up with meaningless
> changes far outweighs the risk of us having too many people in the Zoom
> call. :)

It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
and instead have civilized conversation.

But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a
"Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen,
heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video
conference.  They would not be able to join the conversation held in
such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be
able to attend.

Thanks.

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Taylor Blau]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 03:48:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:
>
> > One note I'd like to make is that the Git community already suffers from
> > a lack of diversity; it will be hard for us to make meaningful changes
> > if just those of us who already contribute attend, because many of us -
> > myself included! - come from privilege and don't have much or any
> > firsthand experience with microaggressions (or overt discrimination). I
> > think it's a good idea to expand the attendance of this summit beyond
> > the current contributor base and try to include more diverse voices and
> > experts in building inclusive products.
> >
> > To that end, I'm going to see what kind of interested parties we can
> > find to invite within Google - and I hope others will do the same within
> > their own network. I think the risk of us coming up with meaningless
> > changes far outweighs the risk of us having too many people in the Zoom
> > call. :)

To Emily; I would be honored to attend. Please let me know if there is
anything that I can do to help organize such a thing.

> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
> and instead have civilized conversation.
>
> But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a
> "Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen,
> heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video
> conference.  They would not be able to join the conversation held in
> such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be
> able to attend.

I think that this is a very reasonable concern, stated in a very
reasonable fashion. Let's call it something else, sure, and avoid
recording/publishing the event (as we have done in the past at other
in-person events--such as the last Git Merge--which seems like a
lifetime ago ;-).)

> Thanks.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Junio C Hamano]

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

>> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
>> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
>> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
>> and instead have civilized conversation.
>>
>> But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a
>> "Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen,
>> heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video
>> conference.  They would not be able to join the conversation held in
>> such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be
>> able to attend.
>
> I think that this is a very reasonable concern, stated in a very
> reasonable fashion. Let's call it something else, sure, and avoid
> recording/publishing the event (as we have done in the past at other
> in-person events--such as the last Git Merge--which seems like a
> lifetime ago ;-).)

I am not opposed to recording and publishing for wider dissemination
of what was said and agreed on among participants, who join with the
full understanding of how the video meeting will later be consumed.

What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
"you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
after it does not count" summit.

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Taylor Blau]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
> >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
> >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
> >> and instead have civilized conversation.
> >>
> >> But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a
> >> "Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen,
> >> heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video
> >> conference.  They would not be able to join the conversation held in
> >> such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be
> >> able to attend.
> >
> > I think that this is a very reasonable concern, stated in a very
> > reasonable fashion. Let's call it something else, sure, and avoid
> > recording/publishing the event (as we have done in the past at other
> > in-person events--such as the last Git Merge--which seems like a
> > lifetime ago ;-).)
>
> I am not opposed to recording and publishing for wider dissemination
> of what was said and agreed on among participants, who join with the
> full understanding of how the video meeting will later be consumed.
>
> What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
> "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
> didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
> after it does not count" summit.

Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding).
I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list
discussion, not replace it.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Don Goodman-Wilson]

All,

(First of all, it’s Don, rather than Dan; I think Johannes’s
auto-correct got the best of him at one point in his email :D )

I think this is a wonderful idea.

First, I am myself a white cis-het male; my participation in any such
summit would be predicated on ensuring that we have a diversity of
voices present, as I think it is foolish to have a conversation about
inclusivity and equity with only white voices like mine speaking. I
hope and expect that we are planning for that.

Given the concerns about being recorded, perhaps my experience running
Maintainerati events might be helpful. Maintainerati (if you hadn’t
heard of it) is a series of events that gather open source maintainers
into unconference-style conversations about the challenges they face,
and finding solutions to those problems. The events are operated under
Chattham House rules, ensuring the anonymity of participants who wish
to remain so. Even so, the goal of the events is to not only document
the conversations that happened, but to create a set of documents that
allow the conversation to continue long after the event is over, as
well as providing a blueprint for concrete action. It is not difficult
to set up the necessary conditions to make this work, although we will
need dedicated note-takers willing to undergo about 30 minutes of
training. I would be happy to put in the effort to make this kind of
thing happen, if this sounds helpful.

Don Goodman-Wilson

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:35 AM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
> >
> > >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
> > >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
> > >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
> > >> and instead have civilized conversation.
> > >>
> > >> But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a
> > >> "Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen,
> > >> heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video
> > >> conference.  They would not be able to join the conversation held in
> > >> such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be
> > >> able to attend.
> > >
> > > I think that this is a very reasonable concern, stated in a very
> > > reasonable fashion. Let's call it something else, sure, and avoid
> > > recording/publishing the event (as we have done in the past at other
> > > in-person events--such as the last Git Merge--which seems like a
> > > lifetime ago ;-).)
> >
> > I am not opposed to recording and publishing for wider dissemination
> > of what was said and agreed on among participants, who join with the
> > full understanding of how the video meeting will later be consumed.
> >
> > What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
> > "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
> > didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
> > after it does not count" summit.
>
> Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding).
> I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list
> discussion, not replace it.
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Derrick Stolee]

On 6/11/2020 4:58 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:
> All,
> 
> (First of all, it’s Don, rather than Dan; I think Johannes’s
> auto-correct got the best of him at one point in his email :D )

Sorry, Don. This was my fault. I was helping Johannes craft
a cover letter and I mis-typed. Thanks for setting the record
straight.

Thanks,
-Stolee

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2457 bytes --]

Hi Don,

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:

> (First of all, it’s Don, rather than Dan; I think Johannes’s
> auto-correct got the best of him at one point in his email :D )

Yep, sorry for that!

> I think this is a wonderful idea.
>
> First, I am myself a white cis-het male; my participation in any such
> summit would be predicated on ensuring that we have a diversity of
> voices present, as I think it is foolish to have a conversation about
> inclusivity and equity with only white voices like mine speaking. I
> hope and expect that we are planning for that.
>
> Given the concerns about being recorded, perhaps my experience running
> Maintainerati events might be helpful. Maintainerati (if you hadn’t
> heard of it) is a series of events that gather open source maintainers
> into unconference-style conversations about the challenges they face,
> and finding solutions to those problems. The events are operated under
> Chattham House rules, ensuring the anonymity of participants who wish
> to remain so. Even so, the goal of the events is to not only document
> the conversations that happened, but to create a set of documents that
> allow the conversation to continue long after the event is over, as
> well as providing a blueprint for concrete action. It is not difficult
> to set up the necessary conditions to make this work, although we will
> need dedicated note-takers willing to undergo about 30 minutes of
> training. I would be happy to put in the effort to make this kind of
> thing happen, if this sounds helpful.

Thank you for the offer and describing your experience.

I might be completely wrong, but in this instance, I have the impression
that for the topic of changing the default main branch name, a Chattham
House rules meeting might not even be _all_ that crucial. Let me explain
why:

The primary purpose of this meeting, from my point of view, is to align
and coordinate, to set out goals that we want to agree on. Where "we" is
"the core Git contributors".

And from what I see, I am happy to report that I see a lot of alignment
already. There was no "nah, why bother?" response, which made me very
happy, personally.

Every active contributor seems to agree that this is worth doing, and
since I am doing the bulk work (with a lot of help from your side, thank
you so much!), there is not even the question "but who will do it?".

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Junio C Hamano]

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>>
>> >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
>> >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
>> >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
>> >> and instead have civilized conversation.
>> ...
>> What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
>> "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
>> didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
>> after it does not count" summit.
>
> Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding).
> I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list
> discussion, not replace it.

By the way, if I sounded like I consider this "virtual summit" to be
no more than just a place for people with heated head to deflate
before having a civilized conversation, that was not my intention.

I do agree that it is good to have some gathering (or perhaps a
couple of them in shifting time to accomodate people from different
parts of the world) to help make sure everybody is moving towards
the same goal, and I have nothing against a virtual/video meeting
for that purpose.

Other than that it may be held on Zoom, where I do not particularly
like to send people to, after seeing articles like [*1*], that is,
but there may not be a viable alternative.  I dunno.


[Reference]

*1* https://www.ft.com/content/f24bc9c6-ed95-4b31-a011-9e3fcd9cf006

Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
> >> >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
> >> >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
> >> >> and instead have civilized conversation.
> >> ...
> >> What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
> >> "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
> >> didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
> >> after it does not count" summit.
> >
> > Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding).
> > I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list
> > discussion, not replace it.
>
> By the way, if I sounded like I consider this "virtual summit" to be
> no more than just a place for people with heated head to deflate
> before having a civilized conversation, that was not my intention.
>
> I do agree that it is good to have some gathering (or perhaps a
> couple of them in shifting time to accomodate people from different
> parts of the world) to help make sure everybody is moving towards
> the same goal, and I have nothing against a virtual/video meeting
> for that purpose.
>
> Other than that it may be held on Zoom, where I do not particularly
> like to send people to, after seeing articles like [*1*], that is,
> but there may not be a viable alternative.  I dunno.

I heard that concern a couple times. The only reason why I suggested that
platform is because we used it last September, and it worked reasonably
well. And that really was the only reason.

Ciao,
Dscho

>
>
> [Reference]
>
> *1* https://www.ft.com/content/f24bc9c6-ed95-4b31-a011-9e3fcd9cf006
>