14:01:38 #startmeeting diversity_wg 14:01:38 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 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:01:38 The meeting name has been set to 'diversity_wg' 14:01:52 #topic Roll Call 14:01:57 #chair fungi 14:01:57 Current chairs: fungi spotz_ 14:02:54 We'll give people a few minutes but here's the agenda link 14:03:08 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/diversity-wg-agenda 14:05:54 #topic Diversity Survey Questions 14:06:03 #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13m2lIvaxPdboGJtFoqsYAVgULAb3eBfskZydrO2QD7M/edit#gid=0 14:07:17 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 unless it's something very official, "OpenInfra" is preferable 14:07:55 Perfect 14:08:30 it's slightly more brand-recognizable than the foundation name written out in full 14:09:25 Do we want it as the OpenInfra COmmunity or your OpenInfra Community? 14:11:33 We also need to add the questions for what project are you a member of, etc 14:11:40 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 can't remember if that was in the coc refresh discussion or for the survey that we hashed that out already 14:13:50 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 we didn't put it in the ptg etherpad 14:14:57 grr 14:17:02 maybe it's in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/diversity-survey-2023 14:18:54 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 found it! 14:19:47 ;) 14:21:10 Well cell merging:) 14:22:48 Ok all the OpenStacks are replaced with your OpenInfra. So now we have rewording to do? 14:24:05 the rewording is what we identified in the diversity-survey-2023 pad i guess? 14:24:44 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 23 needs a reword 14:26:06 i think formstack may randomize the options anyway 14:26:20 or that may be configurable 14:26:49 The no, few, etc won't make sense randomized 14:26:59 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 i can ask helena 14:29:35 anyway, let's proceed under the assumption there's a solution to that 14:29:38 Can you read #23 I tried to add your comments from the etherpad 14:30:26 by #23 you mean row 23 in the spreadsheet or question 23 from the pad? 14:30:36 spreadsheet sorry 14:32:51 i'm good with what you have there. maybe someone else will have suggestions for improved wording later 14:33:01 i can't really come up with anything better 14:35:25 lines 67 and 70 updated in spreadsheet 14:36:52 spreadsheet 88 shoarts with under 18, we thought about under 15. We do need to change 19-24 to 18-24 14:40:02 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 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 most of ours are decades i guess, with higher resolution in the first few questions 14:41:54 i suppose we could do under 20, 20-29, ... 14:42:06 is there a reason we didn't? 14:43:09 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 I think under 18 is to find out how many minors? 14:43:38 minors according to what culture/jurisdiction? 14:43:53 Good point 14:44:06 seems like another western assumption 14:44:23 It varies some even by state. So do we want an under 15, and then groups of 5 or 10? 14:45:13 do we care to subdivide that much? we could just do 20-year spans even 14:45:49 under 20, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80+ 14:46:38 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 I hate losing data lets do 10, how's that? 14:47:01 I think it's more to make sure we are not having CoC issues with minors 14:48:25 Ok let me know about the age changes 14:49:07 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 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 Ok I updated the English ones, 106 is also in the etherpad but a bit different? 14:51:36 "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 because specifically we wanted to know what (if any) negative impact it had, not affects in general 14:52:22 Ok let me swap that in, etherpad 95 is not in the spreadsheet 14:54:09 er, i meant not *e*ffects in general (my fingers betray my grasp of english grammar too) 14:54:54 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 that one looks like it had multiple choices not quoted in the pad 14:56:14 since it says "Please select all that apply..." 14:56:28 do you have the original handy? 14:56:37 Yeah, let me look 14:57:20 "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 so answers would be all over the place, and we already have the last question where people can vent freeform anyway 14:59:06 I'm in their github but not finding it 14:59:38 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 Ok we'll skip but for future refernce 14:59:56 #link https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion 15:01:11 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 sounds great, thanks for all your hard work on that! 15:02:10 perfect use for a meeting, and we got done in the hour allotted 15:02:10 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 #endmeeting