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

> 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?

> 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 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.

>> 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 ;-).)

> 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.

>
> 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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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
>