Thank you Edward. I am doing that, but "out loud" if you will, on this group. I am asking questions and getting answers (you're the first to actually answer any of my questions).
I am committed to having a free and inclusive community, but with Linux Kernel just having gone through this, and the fall-out still on going, I personally would have us wait to see how that turns out before proceeding with our own. I would like to learn from their mistakes. So far (but after your email was written) I replied with concerns about 1) the Committee, -- the allocation of seats to specific birth demographics -- the politics of said committee ---- members having to embrace the politics of the said committee. -- the personal weight of members being affected by their contributions, in terms of testimony or punishment. 2) having received a message from someone who was pro-CoC, but whose message clearly in violation of the CoC. -- If that is acceptable, then why have a CoC at all? I'm asking a lot of questions and reading all the answers. I appreciate your substantive reply. Here's an operable suggestion: Choose the committee members at random, per each incident, from the list active users at random. Keep choosing until 3 users have indicated they would participate. That would be the best way to avoid most of the concerns I questioned about. > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 1:21 PM > From: "Edward Welbourne" <edward.welbou...@qt.io> > To: "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com> > Cc: "development@qt-project.org" <development@qt-project.org>, "Ulf Hermann" > <ulf.herm...@qt.io> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct > > Jason H (24 October 2018 17:09) > > - Is "Sceintific racism" actual racism or just statistics? > > If it's racism, it's racism, however qualified. > Extrapolation from populations to individuals misuses statistics. > It isn't scientific, it just abuses tools lifted out of science. > > > I really want to know where we are with James Damore because I thought > > his paper was well-researched with a scientific basis? > > I had to look that name up. > While no source is unbiased, I'll take [0] as a tolerable source. > They do, at least, have a fairly solid understanding of what science is > (and isn't). > > * [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Damore > > Apparently he fails to understand the difference between very minor > statistical differences between broad populations and the details of > individuals. > > Specifically: though the proportion of women who are good at certain > tech jobs might be marginally smaller than the proportion of men who > are, a recruiter who has the economic power of Google and commits to > recruiting equally should be able to do so, without compromising its > recruitment standards, provided there aren't *other factors* at play > that prevent it from doing so. The crucial detail here is that Google > employs a tiny proportion of the population from which it could draw > recruits. So half of Google's relevant technical staff - which is how > many women Google would need to hire to meet the given goal - fits well > within the available pool of suitably-skilled women. > > Google would (in this hypothetical world) have to work a little harder > and pay a little more (but it's only a little, since the statistical > effect is quite small in fact) to find the women than to find the men, > but it's not short of applicants and Google, in particular, has > expertise in the field of selecting the best few from a plethora of > candidates - at least when it comes to pointing one at web pages. The > fact that Google doesn't manage to hire equally many good women as men > in various tech positions *is* evidence that there are other factors at > play, aside from the scientific evidence of very minor differences in > aptitude (mostly stemming from differences in interest). > > It is, furthermore, patently clear that the world does have other > factors that contribute to the gender divide in various jobs. When > boards are dominated by men, it is no great surprise that women aren't > as widely represented in upper management, from the ranks of which most > boards are drawn, to take just one example. > But this is something of a digression. > > > Having been interested in software from a very young age, and later > > specifically Open Source, one thing that appealed to me was that it > > was a meritocracy. > > Well, many software practitioners at least aim to make software projects > meritocratic. However, their ability to do so may be compromised by > social dynamics (and economics) in various ways. > > > The best code survives, your code contributions are limited only by > > your code being the best. > > If those evaluating how good something is are, unwittingly, operating in > an environment that some folk find hostile, those folk get driven off > and the evaluators fail to see how good their contributions would have > been, if they'd only felt at ease. The aim of a code of conduct is to > avoid that. > > I endure rudery from others moderately calmly, partly because I come > from a highly-privileged background that gives me the confidence to not > worry that the rudery will actually cause problems I can't handle. I > prefer, and usually manage, to work in environments in which I and those > around me don't need to endure such rudery - partly because, while I can > endure it, I don't like it; but also because I don't want others to be > driven away, whose contributions I might welcome. > > There may be bad codes of conduct out there; please don't let that put > you off trying to think about what a good code of conduct would look > like. In particular, note that there are some "entrenched interests" > that don't seem to like codes of conduct; and they've taken pains to > talk up the misadventures of groups struggling to make them work. Other > groups, garnering far less publicity, have bumbled along quite happily > for years with codes of conduct that seem to work fine. > > So please don't just write off the code of conduct as a bad plan; try to > help us make a good code of conduct and a good process around it. > In particular, please at least read it before criticising it, > > Eddy. > _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
