Options for gender on meeting registration
Hi all, We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place. It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion: What is your gender?* ☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Non-binary/ third gender ☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________ ☐ Prefer not to say *And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question: "We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking." Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our discussion with the developers. Many thanks, Amanda
That looks pretty good - if it is a drop down, can we have prefer not to say be the default? On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi all,
We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place.
It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion:
What is your gender?*
☐ Female
☐ Male
☐ Non-binary/ third gender
☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________
☐ Prefer not to say
*And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question:
"We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking."
Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our discussion with the developers.
Many thanks,
Amanda
_______________________________________________ Diversity mailing list Diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Yes, we can have that as the default option for sure. Thanks for the quick reply! On 01/06/17 18:42, Leslie wrote:
That looks pretty good - if it is a drop down, can we have prefer not to say be the default?
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi all,
We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place.
It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion:
What is your gender?*
☐ Female
☐ Male
☐ Non-binary/ third gender
☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________
☐ Prefer not to say
*And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question:
"We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking."
Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our discussion with the developers.
Many thanks,
Amanda
_______________________________________________ Diversity mailing list Diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Overall seems good. I will point out that the self-described is going to be harder to parse and normalize than the other data because it will be free-form. However, I can't think of a better way to do it and it's important to give that option. agowland> It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question agowland> is, what do we want to include? One suggestion: agowland> What is your gender?* agowland> - Female agowland> - Male agowland> - Non-binary/third gender agowland> - Prefer to self-describe _________________ agowland> - Prefer not to say agowland> *And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why agowland> we're asking this question:
Amanda & everyone else, At 2017-06-01 12:05:00 +0200 Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place.
It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion:
What is your gender?*
☐ Female
☐ Male
☐ Non-binary/ third gender
☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________
☐ Prefer not to say
*And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question:
"We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking."
Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our discussion with the developers.
Our approach should depend on whether we care about gender data or diversity data. -------- My initial idea was to gather gender data, as an initial proxy for diversity data. The recommendation that I received was three options: * Female * Male * Fill-in-the-blank ("self-described" above) If we focus on gender data, I would prefer that making any choice be opt-in, rather than "prefer not to say" be a 4th choice. So, the UI might look something like: [ ] Provide optional gender information [why this is important pop-up] ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) ________________ I don't know enough about gender issues to say whether having a non-binary/third-gender option is a good idea, but on the face of it keeping it as simple as possible makes sense to me. I recognize that a fill-in-the-blank field will complicate statistics, but I think it is probably the best that we can do. -------- Alternately, we may decide that we should look at diversity instead of gender. This approach was suggested during the workshop that we had before RIPE 74. The idea is more like this: [ ] I consider myself a part of an under-represented group at RIPE (Check all that apply.) [why this is important pop-up] [ ] Gender ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) _________________ ( ) Prefer not to say [ ] Sexual orientation [ ] Religion [ ] Race or ethnic origin [ ] _____________________ This can gather gender statistics, but also provides some insight into how many people think they are under-represented and for what reason. I pulled the proposed list here from the RIPE Code of Conduct. I am in no way wedded to it, and take no offense if you think it is crap. Note that some people may prefer to say that they are in an under-represented gender but not wish to provide any more information. So the "Prefer not to say" option returns, in a slightly different context. -------- What is important is that we try to collect data in a way that we can maintain a series over time and have a reasonable comparison between meetings. That means we should try to get it right. :) We has assumed that we would NOT be able to add this for RIPE 75, because of the short timelines involved in the software. If we think it is important, then we can go for it. I am not sure that we can get it correct today. :( I'm happy to join a call/chat later today or early next week if that makes sense. (Not Monday though, because it's a public holiday here and I'm on a long weekend away. I'm surprised at the Monday hard deadline since I expected that the RIPE NCC would be off on Monday too!) Finally, I think that RIPE 75 will be an unusual RIPE meeting in terms of the groups that attend due to the location (Dubai). Certainly we expect a lot more Muslims than usual, for example. I am not sure if that makes it more important or less important to collect diversity information though.... Cheers, -- Shane
Hey Shane, On 02/06/17 10:02, Shane Kerr wrote:
Amanda & everyone else,
At 2017-06-01 12:05:00 +0200 Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place.
It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion:
What is your gender?*
☐ Female
☐ Male
☐ Non-binary/ third gender
☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________
☐ Prefer not to say
*And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question:
"We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking."
Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our discussion with the developers. Our approach should depend on whether we care about gender data or diversity data.
--------
My initial idea was to gather gender data, as an initial proxy for diversity data. The recommendation that I received was three options:
* Female * Male * Fill-in-the-blank ("self-described" above
If we focus on gender data, I would prefer that making any choice be opt-in, rather than "prefer not to say" be a 4th choice. So, the UI might look something like:
[ ] Provide optional gender information [why this is important pop-up] ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) ________________
I don't know enough about gender issues to say whether having a non-binary/third-gender option is a good idea, but on the face of it keeping it as simple as possible makes sense to me. The suggestion I put forward was the result of some research into the best (most respectful, inclusive) way to ask the question in surveys. Simplicity is doable, but I just want to make sure that we don't sacrifice inclusion for simplicity.
I recognize that a fill-in-the-blank field will complicate statistics, but I think it is probably the best that we can do.
--------
Alternately, we may decide that we should look at diversity instead of gender. This approach was suggested during the workshop that we had before RIPE 74. The idea is more like this:
[ ] I consider myself a part of an under-represented group at RIPE (Check all that apply.) [why this is important pop-up] [ ] Gender ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) _________________ ( ) Prefer not to say [ ] Sexual orientation [ ] Religion [ ] Race or ethnic origin [ ] _____________________
This can gather gender statistics, but also provides some insight into how many people think they are under-represented and for what reason.
I pulled the proposed list here from the RIPE Code of Conduct. I am in no way wedded to it, and take no offense if you think it is crap. I think we need to have a discussion about the pros/cons of having the question worded this way.
My preference would be to limit the question to gender for RIPE 75 so at least we can start and then expand to other aspects of diversity/inclusion when we have more time to figure out the best way to phrase the question.
Note that some people may prefer to say that they are in an under-represented gender but not wish to provide any more information. So the "Prefer not to say" option returns, in a slightly different context.
--------
What is important is that we try to collect data in a way that we can maintain a series over time and have a reasonable comparison between meetings. That means we should try to get it right. :)
We has assumed that we would NOT be able to add this for RIPE 75, because of the short timelines involved in the software. If we think it is important, then we can go for it. I am not sure that we can get it correct today. :( I'm happy to join a call/chat later today or early next week if that makes sense. (Not Monday though, because it's a public holiday here and I'm on a long weekend away. I'm surprised at the Monday hard deadline since I expected that the RIPE NCC would be off on Monday too!)
We're not working on Monday either, Martina wanted us to have the content ready for Tuesday when she meets with SWE so that they can let us know what's possible. So, it's not guaranteed that we can have anything in place for RIPE 75...but certainly keeping the question limited in scope (for now) will give us more of a chance of having something in place at all.
Finally, I think that RIPE 75 will be an unusual RIPE meeting in terms of the groups that attend due to the location (Dubai). Certainly we expect a lot more Muslims than usual, for example. I am not sure if that makes it more important or less important to collect diversity information though....
Cheers,
-- Shane
Amanda, [ Sorry for the long mail. I'm feeling to lazy to trim properly. ] At 2017-06-02 10:43:34 +0200 Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Hey Shane,
On 02/06/17 10:02, Shane Kerr wrote:
Amanda & everyone else,
At 2017-06-01 12:05:00 +0200 Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place.
It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion:
What is your gender?*
☐ Female
☐ Male
☐ Non-binary/ third gender
☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________
☐ Prefer not to say
*And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question:
"We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking."
Happy to hear your thoughts (soon please) so we can include this in our discussion with the developers. Our approach should depend on whether we care about gender data or diversity data.
--------
My initial idea was to gather gender data, as an initial proxy for diversity data. The recommendation that I received was three options:
* Female * Male * Fill-in-the-blank ("self-described" above
If we focus on gender data, I would prefer that making any choice be opt-in, rather than "prefer not to say" be a 4th choice. So, the UI might look something like:
[ ] Provide optional gender information [why this is important pop-up] ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) ________________
I don't know enough about gender issues to say whether having a non-binary/third-gender option is a good idea, but on the face of it keeping it as simple as possible makes sense to me. The suggestion I put forward was the result of some research into the best (most respectful, inclusive) way to ask the question in surveys. Simplicity is doable, but I just want to make sure that we don't sacrifice inclusion for simplicity.
Okay, if we decide to focus on gender and it makes more sense to include non-binary/third-gender as an option, then we should do it. I do think that presenting all options under a single "opt-in" checkbox makes more sense than including "prefer not to say" as an option. Logically there are two things going on: 1. The attendee decides to opt-in, and 2. The attendee provides the information.
I recognize that a fill-in-the-blank field will complicate statistics, but I think it is probably the best that we can do.
--------
Alternately, we may decide that we should look at diversity instead of gender. This approach was suggested during the workshop that we had before RIPE 74. The idea is more like this:
[ ] I consider myself a part of an under-represented group at RIPE (Check all that apply.) [why this is important pop-up] [ ] Gender ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) _________________ ( ) Prefer not to say [ ] Sexual orientation [ ] Religion [ ] Race or ethnic origin [ ] _____________________
This can gather gender statistics, but also provides some insight into how many people think they are under-represented and for what reason.
I pulled the proposed list here from the RIPE Code of Conduct. I am in no way wedded to it, and take no offense if you think it is crap. I think we need to have a discussion about the pros/cons of having the question worded this way.
Yes. Certainly not something that we can do in the next 3 hours. :)
My preference would be to limit the question to gender for RIPE 75 so at least we can start and then expand to other aspects of diversity/inclusion when we have more time to figure out the best way to phrase the question.
The problem is that if we decide to move to a style where we ask people to self-identify as belonging to an under-represented group, then we cannot compare the results of that with the RIPE 75 gender-only data. Still, I guess I support your proposal for two reasons: 1. Something is better than nothing, which is what we have now. ;) 2. It provides a message that we take diversity seriously have have started doing something to improve the situation.
Note that some people may prefer to say that they are in an under-represented gender but not wish to provide any more information. So the "Prefer not to say" option returns, in a slightly different context.
--------
What is important is that we try to collect data in a way that we can maintain a series over time and have a reasonable comparison between meetings. That means we should try to get it right. :)
We has assumed that we would NOT be able to add this for RIPE 75, because of the short timelines involved in the software. If we think it is important, then we can go for it. I am not sure that we can get it correct today. :( I'm happy to join a call/chat later today or early next week if that makes sense. (Not Monday though, because it's a public holiday here and I'm on a long weekend away. I'm surprised at the Monday hard deadline since I expected that the RIPE NCC would be off on Monday too!) We're not working on Monday either, Martina wanted us to have the content ready for Tuesday when she meets with SWE so that they can let us know what's possible. So, it's not guaranteed that we can have anything in place for RIPE 75...but certainly keeping the question limited in scope (for now) will give us more of a chance of having something in place at all.
Understood. Have a good weekend! Cheers, -- Shane
Shane Kerr wrote on 02/06/2017 13:46:
Amanda,
[ Sorry for the long mail. I'm feeling to lazy to trim properly. ]
I'm going to trim a little more than Shane because I'm waiting for a plane in VIE and I have lots of time. :)
At 2017-06-02 10:43:34 +0200 Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Hey Shane,
On 02/06/17 10:02, Shane Kerr wrote:
Amanda & everyone else,
At 2017-06-01 12:05:00 +0200 Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
We have an opportunity to include a question on the meeting reg software in time for RIPE 75, but we need input by this coming Monday (hard deadline) if we want to have something in place.
It's a chance to start gathering those metrics early. Question is, what do we want to include? One suggestion:
What is your gender?*
☐ Female
☐ Male
☐ Non-binary/ third gender
☐ Prefer to self-describe _________________
☐ Prefer not to say
*And then we can have a pop-up info window to explain why we're asking this question:
"We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings. One way we're doing this is to gather data to see where we need to improve. This data will only be used anonymously for metric benchmarking."
I very much like the Non-binary/third gender option here. Thank you for that. I do think it might head off some criticism if we explicitly state this is the first step in collecting more volunteered metrics and we'll look to have more options regarding race/class/whatever for future RIPE meetings? Could just be added into the text box?
The suggestion I put forward was the result of some research into the best (most respectful, inclusive) way to ask the question in surveys. Simplicity is doable, but I just want to make sure that we don't sacrifice inclusion for simplicity.
Okay, if we decide to focus on gender and it makes more sense to include non-binary/third-gender as an option, then we should do it.
I do think that presenting all options under a single "opt-in" checkbox makes more sense than including "prefer not to say" as an option. Logically there are two things going on:
1. The attendee decides to opt-in, and 2. The attendee provides the information.
I have no strong opinion here. :)
My preference would be to limit the question to gender for RIPE 75 so at least we can start and then expand to other aspects of diversity/inclusion when we have more time to figure out the best way to phrase the question.
The problem is that if we decide to move to a style where we ask people to self-identify as belonging to an under-represented group, then we cannot compare the results of that with the RIPE 75 gender-only data.
But not the end of the world, as you say below.
Still, I guess I support your proposal for two reasons:
1. Something is better than nothing, which is what we have now. ;) 2. It provides a message that we take diversity seriously have have started doing something to improve the situation.
And importantly sooner than we thought we would be able to.
Note that some people may prefer to say that they are in an under-represented gender but not wish to provide any more information. So the "Prefer not to say" option returns, in a slightly different context.
--------
What is important is that we try to collect data in a way that we can maintain a series over time and have a reasonable comparison between meetings. That means we should try to get it right. :)
We has assumed that we would NOT be able to add this for RIPE 75, because of the short timelines involved in the software. If we think it is important, then we can go for it. I am not sure that we can get it correct today. :( I'm happy to join a call/chat later today or early next week if that makes sense. (Not Monday though, because it's a public holiday here and I'm on a long weekend away. I'm surprised at the Monday hard deadline since I expected that the RIPE NCC would be off on Monday too!) We're not working on Monday either, Martina wanted us to have the content ready for Tuesday when she meets with SWE so that they can let us know what's possible. So, it's not guaranteed that we can have anything in place for RIPE 75...but certainly keeping the question limited in scope (for now) will give us more of a chance of having something in place at all.
Understood. Have a good weekend!
Long weekends for all! Apart from those who had one last weekend! And thanks for the work of the NCC teams who will hopefully be able to enable this for 75! Enjoy, Brian
participants (5)
-
Amanda Gowland -
Brian Nisbet -
Leslie -
Paul Ebersman -
Shane Kerr