[FOSS4G-Oceania] Motion: extended, targeted call for papers if needed

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Silk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:26 PM adam steer
> <adam.d.steer at gmail.com> wrote:>> 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’> 
> I don't see Sarah's email, I guess it didn't come through to the list?>  
>> The strategy we would employ is this:
>> 
>> - Open a second call for papers, be open about our failure to attract
>>   a speaker cohort that reflects the community in the first round.> 
> Alyssa Wright's talk at State of the Map 2013 noted that:
>  - 3% of contributions to OpenStreetMap are by women
>  - 1% of participants in open source communities are women
>  
>> What do the women on this list feel about being focussed on as per a
>> specific CFP and community vote?>>  
>> **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> 
> We've taken a similar approach to
> https://geekfeminism.org/2012/05/21/how-i-got-50-women-speakers-at-my-tech-conference/
> and
> https://2012.jsconf.eu/2012/09/17/beating-the-odds-how-we-got-25-percent-women-speakers.html
> and http://conference.hopper.org.nz/#selection and
> https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-panels.> 
> And a lot of these resources + about commentary on Twitter etc is
> pretty explicit about this point:>
>> 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.>  
> I think these proposals are going waaay down this route.
> 
> 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.> The first would make the second a lot easier.

+1 to all these points.

I'm -1 to extending the CFP to one specific demographic. If it's
extended I think it should be non-discriminatory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g-oceania/attachments/20180907/222ff477/attachment.html>