SPI Advisors and Gender Imbalance (was Re: Spi-general Digest, Vol 159, Issue 2)
Philippe Cloutier
chealer at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 00:07:38 UTC 2019
Hi Katherine and welcome to SPI,
I understand your frustration of not being able to join. I was there
myself a few years ago, although the issue was silent, so it took a
while to detect it. There is still a ticket which should help to ease
detection of these situations:
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-September/003545.html
Thank you for being kind enough to report the issue. I am glad it could
be solved.
I'm sorry, my statement was unclear at best. What I meant to say is that
I do not consider it a problem if the number of male SPI members is
different from the number of female members. I consider diversity and
inclusiveness as 2 very different things. I do not see it as a problem
per se that diversity is lower than it could be, but I would consider it
a problem if inclusiveness is lower than it can be. And I would see it
as a problem if the average power in SPI of a group X was different from
the average power in SPI of a group Y, if the only difference between
their members was gender.
So to go back to advisors, I don't see it as a problem per se if 2
associated projects have different numbers of advisors. What I would
consider problematic is if 2 equally important associated projects,
having each proposed an equal number of equally competent and acceptable
candidates, would end up with a different number of SPI advisors.
Le 2019-12-10 à 09:02, Katherine Mcmillan a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment on this - I have not been able to
> join SPI formally as the "Apply" link under Membership on the website
> it broken.
>
> I agree with rescinding the positions of SPI Board Advisors. It's
> problematic to allow these (all male) people to continue on in those
> positions, when people like myself who are very interested can't even
> join SPI as a member. It's offensive, and as Martin pointed out,
> doesn't reflect reality. It's very misleading with regards to their
> role in/with SPI. Why would they continue to have these titles if
> they're not interested/not doing anything special? I would infer that
> advisors for a project are consulted, and if they were not, I would
> question the entire communications and governance of the project
> (which I am now doing). I would recommend SPI brings on
> productive/interested advisors if they will continue recognizing these
> positions/titles, and to actually consult the advisors. If the
> current advisors want to play an active role in consultation, then
> they could keep their title/role. I would like to put my name forward
> as the Diversity and Inclusion Advisor, if advisors will remain.
>
> With regards to Filipus's comment, "Nor would I consider gender
> imbalance as a problem per se": Gender imbalance is a huge problem in
> SPI, please stop denying that this is a massive, glaring problem, and
> looks terrible for SPI's current optics in terms of inclusiveness and
> diversity. Again, as an outsider (who also happens to be female) I
> can honestly say that SPI looks, from the outside, to be a
> cis-white-middle-aged-male-debian "Boys' club". Gender imbalance is
> absolutely a problem per se, as is the lack of other types of diversity.
>
> Sincerely,
> Katie McMillan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:00 AM <spi-general-request at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general-request at lists.spi-inc.org>> wrote:
>
> Send Spi-general mailing list submissions to
> spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org <mailto:spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> spi-general-request at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general-request at lists.spi-inc.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> spi-general-owner at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general-owner at lists.spi-inc.org>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Spi-general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Martin Michlmayr)
> 2. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Luca Filipozzi)
> 3. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Bdale Garbee)
> 4. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Martin Michlmayr)
> 5. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Filipus Klutiero)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:36:06 +0200
> From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm at cyrius.com <mailto:tbm at cyrius.com>>
> To: Tim Potter <tpot at frungy.org <mailto:tpot at frungy.org>>
> Cc: spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <20191209203606.GA29219 at jirafa.cyrius.com
> <mailto:20191209203606.GA29219 at jirafa.cyrius.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> * Tim Potter <tpot at frungy.org <mailto:tpot at frungy.org>>
> [2019-12-09 20:17]:
> > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI
> board was
> > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board
> Advisors
> > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long
> time. It is
> > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI
> Board Advisors.
>
> I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
> i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
> that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
> invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
> advisors).
>
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> https://www.cyrius.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:49:48 +0000
> From: Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz at spi-inc.org
> <mailto:lfilipoz at spi-inc.org>>
> To: spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <20191209224948.menxx5kgkkwrt7hb at snafu.emyr.net
> <mailto:20191209224948.menxx5kgkkwrt7hb at snafu.emyr.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 10:36:06PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Tim Potter <tpot at frungy.org <mailto:tpot at frungy.org>>
> [2019-12-09 20:17]:
> > > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI
> board was
> > > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago
> Board Advisors
> > > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long
> time. It is
> > > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI
> Board Advisors.
> >
> > I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
> > i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
> > that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
> > invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
> > advisors).
>
> That plus:
> - (1) we don't actually reach out to the advisors for input (as far as
> I've seen since I was elected a few years ago)
> - (2) if we want input from someone, we can just ask them without
> appointing them as an advisor
>
> --
> Luca Filipozzi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:59:07 -0700
> From: Bdale Garbee <bdale at gag.com <mailto:bdale at gag.com>>
> To: Tim Potter <tpot at frungy.org <mailto:tpot at frungy.org>>,
> spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org <mailto:spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <87blshyukk.fsf at gag.com <mailto:87blshyukk.fsf at gag.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Tim Potter <tpot at frungy.org <mailto:tpot at frungy.org>> writes:
>
> > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI
> board was
> > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board
> Advisors
> > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long
> time. It is
> > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board
> > Advisors.
>
> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
>
> Bdale
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 832 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:
> <http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20191209/69639f1f/attachment-0001.pgp>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 01:19:03 +0200
> From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm at cyrius.com <mailto:tbm at cyrius.com>>
> To: Bdale Garbee <bdale at gag.com <mailto:bdale at gag.com>>
> Cc: spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>, Tim Potter
> <tpot at frungy.org <mailto:tpot at frungy.org>>
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <20191209231903.GB29219 at jirafa.cyrius.com
> <mailto:20191209231903.GB29219 at jirafa.cyrius.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> * Bdale Garbee <bdale at gag.com <mailto:bdale at gag.com>> [2019-12-09
> 15:59]:
> > It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution
> instead of
> > just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> > appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
>
> Make sure reality is reflected.
>
> The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
> in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that. It also creates
> more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
> an advisor?)
>
> (For the record, I'm not on the board and can't speak for SPI. But I
> brought this up when I was on the board and had the action item to
> write a resolution, which unfortunately I never did.)
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> https://www.cyrius.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:12:04 -0500
> From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer at gmail.com <mailto:chealer at gmail.com>>
> To: spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org
> <mailto:spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <f2696ab9-4131-e1a3-ad1f-5851abf7ab16 at gmail.com
> <mailto:f2696ab9-4131-e1a3-ad1f-5851abf7ab16 at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 2019-12-09 ? 18:19, Martin Michlmayr a ?crit?:
> > * Bdale Garbee <bdale at gag.com <mailto:bdale at gag.com>>
> [2019-12-09 15:59]:
> >> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution
> instead of
> >> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from
> existing
> >> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
> > Make sure reality is reflected.
> >
> > The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been
> consulted
> > in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that.
>
>
> I find it quite natural in a mostly open project like this one that
> advisors are not explicitly consulted. I would not infer from a
> presence
> in such an SPI advisor list that a person is explicitly consulted.
>
>
> > It also creates
> > more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader
> always
> > an advisor?)
>
> I do not see balance between projects (whatever that means) as a
> goal.
> Nor would I consider gender imbalance as a problem per se. To discuss
> genders, the problem I could see is a lack of feminine presence.
> But I
> expelling productive males would be a costly solution to that, if
> it can
> be one.
>
> I never heard about advisor creating any kind of imbalance (though I
> must say I was also unaware of their existence).
>
>
> That being said, I have no strong opinion on this, though if we don't
> publish a list of current advisors, as seems to be the case, I would
> tend to support abolition.
>
> >
> > [...]
>
> --
> Filipus Klutiero
> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org <mailto:Spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org>
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
>
> End of Spi-general Digest, Vol 159, Issue 2
> *******************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
--
Philippe Cloutier
http://www.philippecloutier.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20191217/62d3d816/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Spi-general
mailing list