Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

From: Don Goodman-Wilson <don@goodman-wilson.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2020, 08:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGA3LAdz21nZFeztkHp5XUQ4h-kWnqTzb8pDXjne7PqeMFhLRQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200611023503.GA24130@syl.local>

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:

Show 37 quoted lines

>
> 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