[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] RFC: diversity and DebConf, calling for input

Let's focus on this thread; having two is less efficient.

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:35 AM, martin f krafft <madduck@debconf.org> wrote:
> Which is precisely what the wiki page starts with: what are the
> benefits?

I saw this email later so when I wrote my initial reply, I hadn't read
the titanpad, or the wiki page.

I still think it falls short on specifics (and I will help work on
that); I fear that this could lead to heated debates later on.

As an example "Person who is ~1.80m tall, brown-haired, and whom I
have not seen for a few years and would like to see again, plus they
want to visit Germany for free and only use Windows" would definitely
increase overall diversity, simply by being weirdly specific in
several regards. Obviously, this is over the top, but to be able to
absolutely avoid this, we would need some framework.
This quickly turns the discussion around: What do we actually _want_?
As many people who have one diversity characteristic? Few people who
are as diverse as possible?

Asking "please state your gender, gender identity, sexual
preference(s) and ethnicity" may not be the most sane approach, yet we
would need to gather this data somehow. Would we have a checkbox "I am
different so I would like to participate in this program"?

Next is funding: Will they "compete" in the same pool and just have a
few extra slots? Will we use up diversity funding first and then put
them into the normal pool? If yes, how exactly will this work with
repeated waves of early travel sponsorship (which are a great idea to
being down cost and optimize fund usage)?

Will there be an extra pool of money for late-comers who are _really_ diverse?

IMO, when money is involved you need to agree on a framework for
decision-making early on.

Again, I really think "diversity" is a good idea and something we
should try to achieve and will help try define it; this is not an
argument against this initiative, just a call for preciseness.


Reply to: