[Chicago] ChiPy Organizers Meeting

[Daniel Peters]

Jen Leadbetter you are so awesome.  Thank you so much for throwing this
into the conversation.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jennifer, that was totally awesome!
>
> I don't participate much in Chipy any more because I moved out of
> state, but I still subscribe to the list because I learn so much. But
> I am also a member of several similar groups that lack diversity.
>
> Do you think it would help to have an intro section at the beginning
> of each meeting where new people could introduce themselves and the
> old people could welcome them explicitly? (And then hopefully not
> avoid or dismiss them thereafter?)
>
> 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"
> >
> >
> > 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).
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > And now I'll go back to being a silent lurker. :D
> >
> >
> > Jen
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chicago mailing list
> > Chicago at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140221/4735ef87/attachment-0001.html>