[Chicago] ChiPy Organizers Meeting

Fri Feb 21 19:55:42 CET 2014

to add to "I'm not interested for now" - for those who would think "have a
voice, or why speak?" -

To make the point clear (pushing "welcoming" to the boundary of "abuse", as
in not-welcoming == don't care):

The argument of "come if you want to speak" might be seen in the light of
"beatings will continue until moral improves" (hahaha), or "If you can't
take the abuse, then you can't possibly be allowed a voice against the
abuse" - isn't that sort of SM-y?

Making more sense?

Anyway, that's the general basis of my favoring Jen's inclusion
recommendations.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Yarko Tymciurak <yarkot1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> ... and just when I've stopped looking at this thread, and thought of
> completely silencing it (for a while at least), I see this gem from Jen...
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jennifer Leadbetter <jleadbet at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I realize with the pace this mailing list moves, I'm a bit behind and
>> this discussion may be winding down. I'm mostly an observer, but I'd like
>> to present an outsider's perspective, because I've been seeing what I feel
>> to be some really poor responses to the concepts of "exclusivity" and
>> "diversity" from all sides of the issue:
>>
>>
>> 1) "Diversity isn't just about skin color and gender. I may a white male,
>> but I'm definitely different from other people in the group"
>>
>
> Point, and goal:   self-awareness is good (as is self-acceptance);
>  empathy, being able to read and appreciate other's experience is about
> "connecting".   Disconnected groups ... well, aren't groups.  They
> self-select for those "who all experience alike".
>
> And if you're wondering "who cares? I mean, really - isn't this hair
> splitting?" - then think about the analogy to design and interfaces - and
> bugs:  failure to see use cases (experiences) from other perspectives
> means... "fail".
>
> To get good at code, get good at "loving-kindness" (including empathy,
> welcoming behaviors, etc.).
> It's irrelevant that "you think" you already know that, or get that - it's
> only relevant how others perceive you getting them.
>
>
>> It's true that everyone has something that makes them stand out from the
>> crowd. However, several studies have been done on organizations that have
>> tried to increase diversity by teaching "general diversity" (i.e., we're
>> all special). They don't work, and actually have the opposite effect of
>> reinforcing the exclusivity.
>>
>>
>> Being a hobbyist versus being a professional is not the same level of
>> diversity as, say, being an African American or being a woman, because
>> hobbyists probably haven't grown up with a "hobbyist" identity their whole
>> lives (and dealing with all the social ramifications that shaped their
>> personality and the way they interact with and view the world). If you want
>> diversity, you actually have to recognize and target the specific
>> populations where you want to increase diversity.
>>
>>
>> 2) "Our group is completely friendly. When I came to the group I was
>> totally welcomed."
>>
>>
>> First, I recommend researching the phrase "stereotype threat". When
>> people are reminded that they're part of the "out" group, it drastically
>> affects the way they act, think and perform (and also how likely they are
>> to stick with the activity).
>>
>
> There is a more general version of this, and it has roots in brain
> structures, what drives us, and affect.  Dan Siegel (neuroscientist) in his
> book about brain development in the "adolescent" stage (which he describes
> as 12-24) talks about how the brain takes on and begins to mirror the
> messages we hand it (intentionally or inadvertantly).
>
> "Irresponsible teen" - is that kind of thing.
> "Your not employable" w.r.t. financial crisis of 2008-2009 is that kind of
> thing (think about the last time you stopped to talk to a homeless person
> and treat them like a human;  how must that affect them - all day long -
> from the receiving end).
>
> This is fundamentals of social organization.
>
> Jen is dead on.
>
>
>>
>> What's welcoming and friendly to you, may be completely hostile to
>> another person. You're obviously in the group because you feel welcomed,
>> and you're trying to figure out why other people don't feel welcomed. The
>> best response is to listen to what they have to say and acknowledge that
>> perhaps the group has unconscious behaviors you haven't experienced.
>>
>>
>> 3) "You just need to introduce yourself more."
>>
>>
>> The problem isn't shyness. It's feeling unwelcome (see problem #2).
>> Asking the person to introduce themselves to more people that make them
>> feel unwelcome is not going to improve the issue and make the person want
>> to come back.  To fix the problem, people who already feel welcomed need to
>> take the initiative in meeting newcomers, not the other way around.
>>
>
> Another "point and goal".
>
> Since "care" is from a fundamental brain structure, we look for that from
> others before we join socially (play/joy).
> See my diagram on http://gotlove2do.eventbrite.com
>
>
>>
>> The problem isn't shyness. It's feeling unwelcome (see problem #2).
>> Asking the person to introduce themselves to more people that make them
>> feel unwelcome is not going to improve the issue and make the person want
>> to come back.  To fix the problem, people who already feel welcomed need to
>> take the initiative in meeting newcomers, not the other way around.
>>
>>
>> This whole discussion was started because people felt the criteria for
>> showing up to the meeting were too exclusive, and I'm inclined to agree. I
>> have no "skin in the game", so to speak, because I don't live in the area
>> and rarely come to ChiPy. But I do have a stake in the outcome -- I stay on
>> the list because I have friends in the organization and I love the things I
>> learn from being on the list. And I do want an organization where, when I
>> do show up, I feel welcome to participate.
>>
>>
>> I understand wanting a base level criteria for people who are going to
>> run the organization. But the criteria seem to self-select for keeping more
>> of the same 'exclusive' behavior in the guiding principles of the
>> organization. Even though it was unintentional, the message sent was "We
>> don't want you here".
>>
>>
>> I believe that the best course of action is to open up the first several
>> of these meetings to whoever wants to participate, regardless of whether
>> they fit the criteria, and then create a group of governing members from
>> the people who keep showing up.  Perhaps you'll get the same group of
>> people you always get, who meet the exact criteria you've outlined; but
>> perhaps you'll get what you've actually been asking for: a broader group of
>> people.
>>
>
> Open to whoever wants.
>
> I am +1,000,000 on this.
>
> Brian R.'s fears of "hijack by the noisy, ill-intentioned"  should be
> moderated "by those who keep showing up".
>
> (anyway, the general welcoming-ness or lack thereof, intentional or
> unintentional, has me pretty much "out" for now, not interested).
>
>
>>
>> And now I'll go back to being a silent lurker. :D
>>
>>
>> Jen
>>
>
> Thanks for the well reasoned comments Jen.
>
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20140221/f6118124/attachment-0001.html>