<div dir="ltr">Hi, <div><br></div><div>My email definitely went to the thread, but there have been a lot in here - so not surprised it was missed. <div><br></div><div><div>I am certainly not for "talks by women for women" or accepting any submissions blindly. This discussion was about wanting to diversify the speakers, not special treatment or the need for certain demographics to be singled out. </div><div><br></div><div>I personally don't see the problem with already having 8 of 50+, I think this is okay as I pointed out there are far fewer women in the community. This is to be expected. </div><div><br></div><div>But if we do want to diversify speakers than we can certainly try if we run an extended CfP but then we just need to be clear and honest about the reasons and if you only open it for the demographic you are encouraging then you increase the submissions from that demographic only. Else we end up with the same problem in a couple of weeks time... If we get no more submissions from a second round that's okay too! But at least it showed an intention to try.</div><div><br></div><div>To keep things fair though - we could finish the second round call, after the first voting round is finished and then actually place the new submissions from round 2 with the submissions that didn't quite meet the cut from round 1 - because we retained say 5 (N) slots for the second round. If all the first round ones get the highest votes again, then that's okay too - and they get in. but it might feel a waste of effort ...but at least we are not saying that the second round group got any special treatment - as it seems to be. </div><div><br></div><div>Hope that makes sense, </div><div><br></div><div>Sarah</div><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 11:48, Andrew Harvey <<a href="mailto:andrew@alantgeo.com.au">andrew@alantgeo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div><div>On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Silk wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:26 PM adam steer <<a href="mailto:adam.d.steer@gmail.com" target="_blank">adam.d.steer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div>
<div><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I think Sarah has some great points. We can be brave and say ‘well, we didn’t get what we expect, so we have N slots available for a round 2 CFP, which is open only for women’<br></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>I don't see Sarah's email, I guess it didn't come through to the list?<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The strategy we would employ is this:<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>- Open a second call for papers, be open about our failure to attract a speaker cohort that reflects the community in the first round. <br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>Alyssa Wright's talk at State of the Map 2013 noted that:<br></div>
<div><div> - 3% of contributions to OpenStreetMap are by women<br></div>
<div> - 1% of participants in open source communities are women<br></div>
</div>
<div> <br></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>What do the women on this list feel about being focussed on as per a specific CFP and community vote?<br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div> <br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>**We could further restrict the vote to women - talks by women, for women? Why not? effectively we arguably right now have talks by men for men :D<br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>We've taken a similar approach to <a href="https://geekfeminism.org/2012/05/21/how-i-got-50-women-speakers-at-my-tech-conference/" target="_blank">https://geekfeminism.org/2012/05/21/how-i-got-50-women-speakers-at-my-tech-conference/</a> and <a href="https://2012.jsconf.eu/2012/09/17/beating-the-odds-how-we-got-25-percent-women-speakers.html" target="_blank">https://2012.jsconf.eu/2012/09/17/beating-the-odds-how-we-got-25-percent-women-speakers.html</a> and <a href="http://conference.hopper.org.nz/#selection" target="_blank">http://conference.hopper.org.nz/#selection</a> and <a href="https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-panels" target="_blank">https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-panels</a>.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>And a lot of these resources + about commentary on Twitter etc is pretty explicit about this point:<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="m_-393982665160868266colour" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span class="m_-393982665160868266font" style="font-family:arial," helvetica"," sans-serif"">if you are going around asking people to speak at your event and they are generally under-represented at your event (say, women at a tech conference), you need to avoid treating them in a special way.</span></span><br></blockquote><div> <br></div>
<div>I think these proposals are going waaay down this route.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There's obviously a need here to do better within this community on a daily basis, not just a one off effort in trying to achieve a diverse speaker line-up for a conference.<br></div>
<div>The first would make the second a lot easier.<br></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>+1 to all these points.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'm -1 to extending the CFP to one specific demographic. If it's extended I think it should be non-discriminatory.<br></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
FOSS4G-Oceania mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:FOSS4G-Oceania@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">FOSS4G-Oceania@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-oceania</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>