Increasing inclusion, not only diversity (an article)
Hi, I find this article interesting and relevant for our efforts: https://medium.com/samsung-internet-dev/help-someone-has-pointed-out-my-conf... Of course, there are differences: she is writing mostly about _developers_ conferences, and smaller ones too, organised by volunteers -- but there is quite an overlap, and similarities are greater then the differences, IMO - so this is what I got as tips , that we can learn from:
Don’t ask people from underrepresented background to help you with your diversity work for free, their work has value.
People who are underrepresented in tech are often also underpaid in tech. Being expected to work for free compounds these issues. Ensure that the people working to diversify your community are fairly compensated for their labor.
I think that RIPE NCC/RIPE meetings are doing some good things in this respect: - we payed for the training of the "trusted contacts" - we subsidize RACI candidates (young, academic, from less wealthy countries) and fellows (newcomers to the community) - we are offering childcare We can think about what else can we do to improve in this area. Next, she identifies 4 different categories of important "actors" (organisers, speakers, volunteers, participants), and says :
By changing only one aspect, such as the speakers, the diversity issues of the conference have not been solved,
We are trying hard to improve the diversity of speakers and participants -- and to measure our progress -- and it's a good thing that we do; but, as Mirjam also pointed out -- we need to do better when it comes to "organisers" (Programme Committee) and "volunteers" (WG Chairs). Then there is a matter of general inequalities in the society, mirrored by the tech-industry, such as:
To have this time available is to be very privileged.
We can not be expected to fix _all_ of the social problems, but we can consider doing this more often:
providing a speakers fee for any speaker you have asked to speak from an underrepresented minority.
I'm aware that this suggestion would spark a discussion, specially about "meritocracy" and "experts" and "quality", but personally I am not going to engage in this on the list - I am assuming we agree on the staring position that it is valuable to the RIPE Community if the diversity & inclusion are increased, and we are only talking about *how*, not _if_ we should aim at that goal. Vesna
Hello Vesna, Thanks for sharing this article, it makes a lot of good points in an accessible way. More comments inline: On 24 Apr 2018, at 15:51, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> wrote:
- we payed for the training of the "trusted contacts”
Out of curiosity, what exact training did they get, and from who? Personally, 80% of my decision making on “will I report this issue to the CoC team” is whether I trust the CoC contacts, in aspects like confidentiality, taking my report seriously, and believing me. Proper training for CoC contacts significantly would increase my trust in these issues, so I would suggest to mention this to the trusted contacts page - I don’t see it there now.
We are trying hard to improve the diversity of speakers and participants -- and to measure our progress -- and it's a good thing that we do; but, as Mirjam also pointed out -- we need to do better when it comes to "organisers" (Programme Committee) and "volunteers" (WG Chairs).
Then there is a matter of general inequalities in the society, mirrored by the tech-industry, such as:
To have this time available is to be very privileged.
I suppose this directly affects volunteer tasks like WG Chairs and Programme Committees. As far as I understand WG Chairs are sort of expected to attend most meetings also, so in that case being a WG Chair is only realistic if you can afford all that time plus € 2000 per year from your or your employer’s budget for conference costs. That inherently creates a strong bias towards privileged groups.
providing a speakers fee for any speaker you have asked to speak from an underrepresented minority.
I'm aware that this suggestion would spark a discussion, specially about "meritocracy" and "experts" and "quality", but personally I am not going to engage in this on the list - I am assuming we agree on the staring position that it is valuable to the RIPE Community if the diversity & inclusion are increased, and we are only talking about *how*, not _if_ we should aim at that goal.
With actually paying someone a fee to speak, immigration can become a lot more complicated also, as lots of visa’s would consider that paid work. There may be ways around this though - I’m not an immigration lawyer. I’ve never dealt with this personally. However, simply covering travel, accommodation and conference ticket costs already helps a lot and is much easier tax and visa-wise. Unless I’m mistaken, that's currently also not an option for RIPE meeting speakers. Personally I very rarely speak at conferences that don’t cover costs, especially because the cumulative cost is rather high - I do quite a bit of public speaking. It is definitely one of the main reasons why submitting to a RIPE meeting currently is not even on my radar. (Although to be fair, I’m not sure whether I have suitable talks anyways.) In my experience as an organiser of conferences where speaker almost always get costs covered when asks, it can pretty much double the number of talks we can accept from women - and that’s just quickly counting one axis of diversity. I think we’d find even more impact in other areas. Sasha
Hello Sasha, On 25/04/2018 14:37, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hello Vesna,
Thanks for sharing this article, it makes a lot of good points in an accessible way. More comments inline:
On 24 Apr 2018, at 15:51, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> wrote:
- we payed for the training of the "trusted contacts”
Out of curiosity, what exact training did they get, and from who?
I can share details here. The training was facilitated by a local trainer based here in Holland who is registered with the International Association on Workplace Bullying & Harassment: www.iawbh.com The training included theory and practice with a professionally trained actor. It ran 1.5 days and covered: · Legal framework (Equal Treatment Legislation, Dutch Penal Code) · Guidelines for Confidants / professional attitude, main tasks · Effects of unacceptable behaviour · Accessibility · Reporting The work with the actor involved "listening skills, specific skills for confidants, dealing with emotions, delay of judgement and discussing solution strategies."
Personally, 80% of my decision making on “will I report this issue to the CoC team” is whether I trust the CoC contacts, in aspects like confidentiality, taking my report seriously, and believing me.
This is completely understandable. Confidentiality is absolutely essential in any report brought forth to a Trusted Contact (TC). The TCs are trained to take all reports seriously and to personally support the person making a report. Additional TCs were added last year to provide attendees more options on whom to approach. The TCs do not share between them the reports/complaints brought to them unless the attendee asks for or agrees to it for the purpose of getting additional support (e.g. having a member of another sex provide perspective if needed).
Proper training for CoC contacts significantly would increase my trust in these issues, so I would suggest to mention this to the trusted contacts page - I don’t see it there now.
Thanks for the suggestion. We appreciate your input, Sasha, and are happy to speak to you further on this at the RIPE Meeting if you wish to meet with any of us. I hope this helps. Let us know if you have further questions. Regards, Nick
We are trying hard to improve the diversity of speakers and participants -- and to measure our progress -- and it's a good thing that we do; but, as Mirjam also pointed out -- we need to do better when it comes to "organisers" (Programme Committee) and "volunteers" (WG Chairs).
Then there is a matter of general inequalities in the society, mirrored by the tech-industry, such as:
To have this time available is to be very privileged.
I suppose this directly affects volunteer tasks like WG Chairs and Programme Committees. As far as I understand WG Chairs are sort of expected to attend most meetings also, so in that case being a WG Chair is only realistic if you can afford all that time plus € 2000 per year from your or your employer’s budget for conference costs. That inherently creates a strong bias towards privileged groups.
providing a speakers fee for any speaker you have asked to speak from an underrepresented minority.
I'm aware that this suggestion would spark a discussion, specially about "meritocracy" and "experts" and "quality", but personally I am not going to engage in this on the list - I am assuming we agree on the staring position that it is valuable to the RIPE Community if the diversity & inclusion are increased, and we are only talking about *how*, not _if_ we should aim at that goal.
With actually paying someone a fee to speak, immigration can become a lot more complicated also, as lots of visa’s would consider that paid work. There may be ways around this though - I’m not an immigration lawyer. I’ve never dealt with this personally.
However, simply covering travel, accommodation and conference ticket costs already helps a lot and is much easier tax and visa-wise. Unless I’m mistaken, that's currently also not an option for RIPE meeting speakers.
Personally I very rarely speak at conferences that don’t cover costs, especially because the cumulative cost is rather high - I do quite a bit of public speaking. It is definitely one of the main reasons why submitting to a RIPE meeting currently is not even on my radar. (Although to be fair, I’m not sure whether I have suitable talks anyways.)
In my experience as an organiser of conferences where speaker almost always get costs covered when asks, it can pretty much double the number of talks we can accept from women - and that’s just quickly counting one axis of diversity. I think we’d find even more impact in other areas.
Sasha _______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
participants (3)
-
Nick Hyrka -
Sasha Romijn -
Vesna Manojlovic