14:01:38 <spotz_> #startmeeting diversity_wg
14:01:38 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue May  9 14:01:38 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is spotz_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:38 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:38 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'diversity_wg'
14:01:52 <spotz_> #topic Roll Call
14:01:57 <spotz_> #chair fungi
14:01:57 <opendevmeet> Current chairs: fungi spotz_
14:02:54 <spotz_> We'll give people a few minutes but here's the agenda link
14:03:08 <spotz_> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/diversity-wg-agenda
14:05:54 <spotz_> #topic Diversity Survey Questions
14:06:03 <spotz_> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13m2lIvaxPdboGJtFoqsYAVgULAb3eBfskZydrO2QD7M/edit#gid=0
14:07:17 <spotz_> We definitely need to change OpenStack to OpenInfra everywhere? Is it ok to use OpenInfra or do we need to write it out?
14:07:43 <fungi> unless it's something very official, "OpenInfra" is preferable
14:07:55 <spotz_> Perfect
14:08:30 <fungi> it's slightly more brand-recognizable than the foundation name written out in full
14:09:25 <spotz_> Do we want it as the OpenInfra COmmunity or your OpenInfra Community?
14:11:33 <spotz_> We also need to add the questions for what project are you a member of, etc
14:11:40 <fungi> i think we previously agreed that "your" was a way to personalize their involvement and to make it clear that openinfra represents multiple communities (for which the respondent may participate in more than one)
14:12:20 <fungi> can't remember if that was in the coc refresh discussion or for the survey that we hashed that out already
14:13:50 <spotz_> No it definitely reads better as your openinfra community. I changed the first few questions. I added a blank line for where we need to ask what community. I know at the last PTG we had some good ideas for that but can't remember the wording
14:14:48 <fungi> we didn't put it in the ptg etherpad
14:14:57 <spotz_> grr
14:17:02 <fungi> maybe it's in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/diversity-survey-2023
14:18:54 <spotz_> Ok I'll look through there. I can't seem to do the cells like aprice did but added the what community question
14:19:23 <spotz_> found it!
14:19:47 <fungi> ;)
14:21:10 <spotz_> Well cell merging:)
14:22:48 <spotz_> Ok all the OpenStacks are replaced with your OpenInfra. So now we have rewording to do?
14:24:05 <fungi> the rewording is what we identified in the diversity-survey-2023 pad i guess?
14:24:44 <spotz_> Yeah just changed #1 to what was in the pad. I think I'll leave the project names in alpha order to not offend anyone
14:25:42 <spotz_> 23 needs a reword
14:26:06 <fungi> i think formstack may randomize the options anyway
14:26:20 <fungi> or that may be configurable
14:26:49 <spotz_> The no, few, etc won't make sense randomized
14:26:59 <fungi> i know it came up when moving the zuul user survey because the answers had been written originally in a way that needed them to remain sequential to make sense
14:27:22 <fungi> i can ask helena
14:29:35 <fungi> anyway, let's proceed under the assumption there's a solution to that
14:29:38 <spotz_> Can you read #23 I tried to add your comments from the etherpad
14:30:26 <fungi> by #23 you mean row 23 in the spreadsheet or question 23 from the pad?
14:30:36 <spotz_> spreadsheet sorry
14:32:51 <fungi> i'm good with what you have there. maybe someone else will have suggestions for improved wording later
14:33:01 <fungi> i can't really come up with anything better
14:35:25 <spotz_> lines 67 and 70 updated in spreadsheet
14:36:52 <spotz_> spreadsheet 88 shoarts with under 18, we thought about under 15. We do need to change 19-24 to 18-24
14:40:02 <fungi> one thing that i always wonder about surveys that analyze "age groups" is why the options aren't of equivalent spans of time. reports like "the majority of occurrences were for people age 17-65, with fewer occurrences in people age 65-71" (well duh, how do you even begin to call those comparable?)
14:40:58 <fungi> that's an exaggeration of course, but when the analysis states that the largest age group also had a majority of something, it seems plain silly
14:41:36 <fungi> most of ours are decades i guess, with higher resolution in the first few questions
14:41:54 <fungi> i suppose we could do under 20, 20-29, ...
14:42:06 <fungi> is there a reason we didn't?
14:43:09 <fungi> i have a feeling the under 20 count would already be very small based on what i know about our existing contributor base (even the interns are usually in their last year or two of a 4-year university program)
14:43:22 <spotz_> I think under 18 is to find out how many minors?
14:43:38 <fungi> minors according to what culture/jurisdiction?
14:43:53 <spotz_> Good point
14:44:06 <fungi> seems like another western assumption
14:44:23 <spotz_> It varies some even by state. So do we want an under 15, and then groups of 5 or 10?
14:45:13 <fungi> do we care to subdivide that much? we could just do 20-year spans even
14:45:49 <fungi> under 20, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80+
14:46:38 <fungi> or are we trying to increase involvement for people under 15? (or under 18?) in ways that the survey results will help us address?
14:46:39 <spotz_> I hate losing data lets do 10, how's that?
14:47:01 <spotz_> I think it's more to make sure we are not having CoC issues with minors
14:48:25 <spotz_> Ok let me know about the age changes
14:49:07 <fungi> looks fine to me. and yeah if we have coc concerns raised by respondents who state they're under 20, we can assume they may be a minor in their relevant jurisdiction
14:49:59 <fungi> if we really want to know whether they're minors we could explicitly ask them, but that term is itself poorly-defined (even ignoring the difference in ages of consent for various things in different places)
14:50:15 <spotz_> Ok I updated the English ones, 106 is also in the etherpad but a bit different?
14:51:36 <fungi> "Has the standardization on English language for communication in your Open infrastructure community been a barrier to your ability to participate?" is what we came up with in the pad
14:52:15 <fungi> because specifically we wanted to know what (if any) negative impact it had, not affects in general
14:52:22 <spotz_> Ok let me swap that in, etherpad 95 is not in the spreadsheet
14:54:09 <fungi> er, i meant not *e*ffects in general (my fingers betray my grasp of english grammar too)
14:54:54 <spotz_> Do we want to track don that one to get the responses or leave it out? If we're leaving out we might be done!
14:55:55 <fungi> that one looks like it had multiple choices not quoted in the pad
14:56:14 <fungi> since it says "Please select all that apply..."
14:56:28 <fungi> do you have the original handy?
14:56:37 <spotz_> Yeah, let me look
14:57:20 <fungi> "What obstacles do you feel limit, or have limited your successful participation in open source?" would be a pretty terrible open-ended prompt since it doesn't limit responses to diversity-relevant aspects of participation
14:57:53 <fungi> so answers would be all over the place, and we already have the last question where people can vent freeform anyway
14:59:06 <spotz_> I'm in their github but not finding it
14:59:38 <fungi> i think we cover most of the possibilities earlier in the survey anyway, so probably fine to skip as i expect it would be mostly redundant
14:59:52 <spotz_> Ok we'll skip but for future refernce
14:59:56 <spotz_> #link https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion
15:01:11 <spotz_> Ok so I think we are done with the survey and can return it to Allison to be put into a Formstack and we can release before or at Summit!
15:01:32 <fungi> sounds great, thanks for all your hard work on that!
15:02:10 <fungi> perfect use for a meeting, and we got done in the hour allotted
15:02:10 <spotz_> Thank you, we'll have I think a meeting before Summit. So we can discuss any last minute things or just bring them up on channel!
15:02:25 <spotz_> #endmeeting