RIPE attendee gender trend: Update for RIPE 77 and RIPE 78
Hello all, I don't think that I published and update of the earlier work done tracking trends of gender of RIPE meeting attendees. Here's one including RIPE 77 and RIPE 78. Basically we look at first name and country and try to guess the attendee's gender based on that. You can see the repository on GitHub which explains the approach, and how to use it yourself. I have a separate branch that I'll merge into the main page when the meeting is over, which will give final statistics: https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender/tree/ripe78 For RIPE 78, we have a relatively lot of names that the underlying genderize.io tool can't even make a guess about: 26 in all, compared to 16 at RIPE 77 in Amsterdam and 18 at RIPE 76 in Dubai. 12 of these are Icelandic names. I'm happy to hard-code these to the correct values if anyone wants to help me with that (I don't know about Tryggvi, Kristbergur, or Örvar, for example). As for the overall trends, the trend of more women attending does continue but there does not seem to be any sharp increase. I don't think we can see a strong signal from when the diversity task force started working, although of course the data is very messy, it was not too long ago, and the actual numbers depend on a huge number of factors (city the meeting is held, quality of the guesses, hard disk prices, and so on). I pushed the date out to find when we might have 50% women attendees at the meeting, and using the current eyeballed polynomial match it's 2026 or so. While that seems not too horrible, I doubt we will follow that trend line and I think that 2026 is a best case. But we remain ever hopeful. As a bonus, I also went through the membership of the RIPE Programme Committee since it's inception (I think), as well as the chairs of RIPE working groups in roughly the same period. (I used the historical RIPE meeting site for PC membership, and slides from the opening plenary with pictures of the WG chairs for the WG chair membership.) This picture looks bad, since it seems like women are under-represented compared to RIPE meeting attendees. This strikes me as an area requiring special attention, and it can be done; for example the IETF has taken specific efforts to ensure enough diversity in their leadership positions. Anyway, I've attached a few charts so you can see for yourself. Cheers, -- Shane
Shane, This is, as ever, fascinating and wonderful. Thank you. For Icelandic names, wouldn't working on surnames be easier as my understanding is they're fairly clear on whether the person is the son or daughter of one of their parents? Thanks again, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________________ From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Sent: Monday 20 May 2019 17:25 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] RIPE attendee gender trend: Update for RIPE 77 and RIPE 78 Hello all, I don't think that I published and update of the earlier work done tracking trends of gender of RIPE meeting attendees. Here's one including RIPE 77 and RIPE 78. Basically we look at first name and country and try to guess the attendee's gender based on that. You can see the repository on GitHub which explains the approach, and how to use it yourself. I have a separate branch that I'll merge into the main page when the meeting is over, which will give final statistics: https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender/tree/ripe78 For RIPE 78, we have a relatively lot of names that the underlying genderize.io tool can't even make a guess about: 26 in all, compared to 16 at RIPE 77 in Amsterdam and 18 at RIPE 76 in Dubai. 12 of these are Icelandic names. I'm happy to hard-code these to the correct values if anyone wants to help me with that (I don't know about Tryggvi, Kristbergur, or Örvar, for example). As for the overall trends, the trend of more women attending does continue but there does not seem to be any sharp increase. I don't think we can see a strong signal from when the diversity task force started working, although of course the data is very messy, it was not too long ago, and the actual numbers depend on a huge number of factors (city the meeting is held, quality of the guesses, hard disk prices, and so on). I pushed the date out to find when we might have 50% women attendees at the meeting, and using the current eyeballed polynomial match it's 2026 or so. While that seems not too horrible, I doubt we will follow that trend line and I think that 2026 is a best case. But we remain ever hopeful. As a bonus, I also went through the membership of the RIPE Programme Committee since it's inception (I think), as well as the chairs of RIPE working groups in roughly the same period. (I used the historical RIPE meeting site for PC membership, and slides from the opening plenary with pictures of the WG chairs for the WG chair membership.) This picture looks bad, since it seems like women are under-represented compared to RIPE meeting attendees. This strikes me as an area requiring special attention, and it can be done; for example the IETF has taken specific efforts to ensure enough diversity in their leadership positions. Anyway, I've attached a few charts so you can see for yourself. Cheers, -- Shane
shane> As a bonus, I also went through the membership of the RIPE shane> Programme Committee since it's inception (I think), as well as shane> the chairs of RIPE working groups in roughly the same period. (I shane> used the historical RIPE meeting site for PC membership, and shane> slides from the opening plenary with pictures of the WG chairs shane> for the WG chair membership.) This picture looks bad, since it shane> seems like women are under-represented compared to RIPE meeting shane> attendees. This strikes me as an area requiring special shane> attention, and it can be done; for example the IETF has taken shane> specific efforts to ensure enough diversity in their leadership shane> positions. Great point. From what I've seen in other volunteer orgs, it takes very active recruitment and lots of pushing to get a more representative sample. Some offers of help/mentoring for those not sure they're "ready" or will be accepted should help too.
For Icelandic names, wouldn't working on surnames be easier as my understanding is they're fairly clear on whether the person is the son or daughter of one of their parents?
I was thinking of the same, but when I looked at the attendee list there are a few (probably) female *sons, and no *dottirs…. As a general rule, though, worth a look. Rob Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800. Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
Hi all, Following up on this, I did a count of gender ratios of speakers, which came to 13-14% women for plenary and WG sessions. This seems slightly lower than the ratio of women among attendees. Details of my count: Plenary (counting only sessions which I expect have gone through the PC process, no NRO/ASO/opening/closing, includes lightning talks): - 27 speakers - 3 women This is 11%, two of the women did lightning talk. For the main (30 minute) PC-managed talk slots, it’s only 1 out of 17, so 5.8% women. WGs: Connect: 6 speakers, 2 women AP: 2 speakers, 0 women Open-source: 4 speakers, 1 woman Cooperation: 4 speakers, 1 woman NCC-services: 5 speakers, 1 woman Anti-abuse: 5 speakers, 2 women IPv6: 6 speakers, 0 women Routing: 5 speakers, 0 women IOT: 6 speakers, 1 woman Database: 4 speakers, 0 women DNS: 5 speakers, 0 women MAT: 6 speakers, 1 woman Total: 85 speakers, 12 women I am only counting people on the published agenda right now, not counting opening/closing slots. Some of these are not entirely “free” choices, as they are done by particular NCC staff. Talks with multiple speakers have each speaker counted on their own. Speakers with multiple talks are counted once for each talk (usually in different WGs). Gender based on first name guess and sometimes looking up the speaker. Sasha
On 20 May 2019, at 19:25, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Hello all,
I don't think that I published and update of the earlier work done tracking trends of gender of RIPE meeting attendees. Here's one including RIPE 77 and RIPE 78.
Basically we look at first name and country and try to guess the attendee's gender based on that.
You can see the repository on GitHub which explains the approach, and how to use it yourself. I have a separate branch that I'll merge into the main page when the meeting is over, which will give final statistics:
https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender/tree/ripe78
For RIPE 78, we have a relatively lot of names that the underlying genderize.io tool can't even make a guess about: 26 in all, compared to 16 at RIPE 77 in Amsterdam and 18 at RIPE 76 in Dubai. 12 of these are Icelandic names. I'm happy to hard-code these to the correct values if anyone wants to help me with that (I don't know about Tryggvi, Kristbergur, or Örvar, for example).
As for the overall trends, the trend of more women attending does continue but there does not seem to be any sharp increase. I don't think we can see a strong signal from when the diversity task force started working, although of course the data is very messy, it was not too long ago, and the actual numbers depend on a huge number of factors (city the meeting is held, quality of the guesses, hard disk prices, and so on).
I pushed the date out to find when we might have 50% women attendees at the meeting, and using the current eyeballed polynomial match it's 2026 or so. While that seems not too horrible, I doubt we will follow that trend line and I think that 2026 is a best case. But we remain ever hopeful.
As a bonus, I also went through the membership of the RIPE Programme Committee since it's inception (I think), as well as the chairs of RIPE working groups in roughly the same period. (I used the historical RIPE meeting site for PC membership, and slides from the opening plenary with pictures of the WG chairs for the WG chair membership.) This picture looks bad, since it seems like women are under-represented compared to RIPE meeting attendees. This strikes me as an area requiring special attention, and it can be done; for example the IETF has taken specific efforts to ensure enough diversity in their leadership positions.
Anyway, I've attached a few charts so you can see for yourself.
Cheers,
-- Shane <RIPE-attendee-gender-chart.png><RIPE-attendee-gender-chart-projected.png><RIPE-leadership-gender-chart.png>_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi Sasha MAT featured two female speakers out of 6 Katarzyna and Te-Yuan Names can be tricky Nina fre. 24. maj 2019 kl. 09.49 skrev Sasha Romijn <sasha@mxsasha.eu>:
Hi all,
Following up on this, I did a count of gender ratios of speakers, which came to 13-14% women for plenary and WG sessions. This seems slightly lower than the ratio of women among attendees.
Details of my count:
Plenary (counting only sessions which I expect have gone through the PC process, no NRO/ASO/opening/closing, includes lightning talks): - 27 speakers - 3 women This is 11%, two of the women did lightning talk. For the main (30 minute) PC-managed talk slots, it’s only 1 out of 17, so 5.8% women.
WGs: Connect: 6 speakers, 2 women AP: 2 speakers, 0 women Open-source: 4 speakers, 1 woman Cooperation: 4 speakers, 1 woman NCC-services: 5 speakers, 1 woman Anti-abuse: 5 speakers, 2 women IPv6: 6 speakers, 0 women Routing: 5 speakers, 0 women IOT: 6 speakers, 1 woman Database: 4 speakers, 0 women DNS: 5 speakers, 0 women MAT: 6 speakers, 1 woman
Total: 85 speakers, 12 women
I am only counting people on the published agenda right now, not counting opening/closing slots. Some of these are not entirely “free” choices, as they are done by particular NCC staff. Talks with multiple speakers have each speaker counted on their own. Speakers with multiple talks are counted once for each talk (usually in different WGs). Gender based on first name guess and sometimes looking up the speaker.
Sasha
On 20 May 2019, at 19:25, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Hello all,
I don't think that I published and update of the earlier work done tracking trends of gender of RIPE meeting attendees. Here's one including RIPE 77 and RIPE 78.
Basically we look at first name and country and try to guess the attendee's gender based on that.
You can see the repository on GitHub which explains the approach, and how to use it yourself. I have a separate branch that I'll merge into the main page when the meeting is over, which will give final statistics:
https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender/tree/ripe78
For RIPE 78, we have a relatively lot of names that the underlying genderize.io tool can't even make a guess about: 26 in all, compared to 16 at RIPE 77 in Amsterdam and 18 at RIPE 76 in Dubai. 12 of these are Icelandic names. I'm happy to hard-code these to the correct values if anyone wants to help me with that (I don't know about Tryggvi, Kristbergur, or Örvar, for example).
As for the overall trends, the trend of more women attending does continue but there does not seem to be any sharp increase. I don't think we can see a strong signal from when the diversity task force started working, although of course the data is very messy, it was not too long ago, and the actual numbers depend on a huge number of factors (city the meeting is held, quality of the guesses, hard disk prices, and so on).
I pushed the date out to find when we might have 50% women attendees at the meeting, and using the current eyeballed polynomial match it's 2026 or so. While that seems not too horrible, I doubt we will follow that trend line and I think that 2026 is a best case. But we remain ever hopeful.
As a bonus, I also went through the membership of the RIPE Programme Committee since it's inception (I think), as well as the chairs of RIPE working groups in roughly the same period. (I used the historical RIPE meeting site for PC membership, and slides from the opening plenary with pictures of the WG chairs for the WG chair membership.) This picture looks bad, since it seems like women are under-represented compared to RIPE meeting attendees. This strikes me as an area requiring special attention, and it can be done; for example the IETF has taken specific efforts to ensure enough diversity in their leadership positions.
Anyway, I've attached a few charts so you can see for yourself.
Cheers,
-- Shane
<RIPE-attendee-gender-chart.png><RIPE-attendee-gender-chart-projected.png><RIPE-leadership-gender-chart.png>_______________________________________________
diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi Nina, Thanks for the correction. There is definitely has a margin of error. Sasha
On 24 May 2019, at 11:53, Nina Bargisen <nihb@netflix.com> wrote:
Hi Sasha
MAT featured two female speakers out of 6 Katarzyna and Te-Yuan
Names can be tricky
Nina
fre. 24. maj 2019 kl. 09.49 skrev Sasha Romijn <sasha@mxsasha.eu <mailto:sasha@mxsasha.eu>>: Hi all,
Following up on this, I did a count of gender ratios of speakers, which came to 13-14% women for plenary and WG sessions. This seems slightly lower than the ratio of women among attendees.
Details of my count:
Plenary (counting only sessions which I expect have gone through the PC process, no NRO/ASO/opening/closing, includes lightning talks): - 27 speakers - 3 women This is 11%, two of the women did lightning talk. For the main (30 minute) PC-managed talk slots, it’s only 1 out of 17, so 5.8% women.
WGs: Connect: 6 speakers, 2 women AP: 2 speakers, 0 women Open-source: 4 speakers, 1 woman Cooperation: 4 speakers, 1 woman NCC-services: 5 speakers, 1 woman Anti-abuse: 5 speakers, 2 women IPv6: 6 speakers, 0 women Routing: 5 speakers, 0 women IOT: 6 speakers, 1 woman Database: 4 speakers, 0 women DNS: 5 speakers, 0 women MAT: 6 speakers, 1 woman
Total: 85 speakers, 12 women
I am only counting people on the published agenda right now, not counting opening/closing slots. Some of these are not entirely “free” choices, as they are done by particular NCC staff. Talks with multiple speakers have each speaker counted on their own. Speakers with multiple talks are counted once for each talk (usually in different WGs). Gender based on first name guess and sometimes looking up the speaker.
Sasha
On 20 May 2019, at 19:25, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org <mailto:shane@time-travellers.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
I don't think that I published and update of the earlier work done tracking trends of gender of RIPE meeting attendees. Here's one including RIPE 77 and RIPE 78.
Basically we look at first name and country and try to guess the attendee's gender based on that.
You can see the repository on GitHub which explains the approach, and how to use it yourself. I have a separate branch that I'll merge into the main page when the meeting is over, which will give final statistics:
https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender/tree/ripe78 <https://github.com/shane-kerr/ripemtggender/tree/ripe78>
For RIPE 78, we have a relatively lot of names that the underlying genderize.io <http://genderize.io/> tool can't even make a guess about: 26 in all, compared to 16 at RIPE 77 in Amsterdam and 18 at RIPE 76 in Dubai. 12 of these are Icelandic names. I'm happy to hard-code these to the correct values if anyone wants to help me with that (I don't know about Tryggvi, Kristbergur, or Örvar, for example).
As for the overall trends, the trend of more women attending does continue but there does not seem to be any sharp increase. I don't think we can see a strong signal from when the diversity task force started working, although of course the data is very messy, it was not too long ago, and the actual numbers depend on a huge number of factors (city the meeting is held, quality of the guesses, hard disk prices, and so on).
I pushed the date out to find when we might have 50% women attendees at the meeting, and using the current eyeballed polynomial match it's 2026 or so. While that seems not too horrible, I doubt we will follow that trend line and I think that 2026 is a best case. But we remain ever hopeful.
As a bonus, I also went through the membership of the RIPE Programme Committee since it's inception (I think), as well as the chairs of RIPE working groups in roughly the same period. (I used the historical RIPE meeting site for PC membership, and slides from the opening plenary with pictures of the WG chairs for the WG chair membership.) This picture looks bad, since it seems like women are under-represented compared to RIPE meeting attendees. This strikes me as an area requiring special attention, and it can be done; for example the IETF has taken specific efforts to ensure enough diversity in their leadership positions.
Anyway, I've attached a few charts so you can see for yourself.
Cheers,
-- Shane <RIPE-attendee-gender-chart.png><RIPE-attendee-gender-chart-projected.png><RIPE-leadership-gender-chart.png>_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net <mailto:diversity@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity>
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net <mailto:diversity@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity>
participants (6)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Nina Bargisen -
Paul Ebersman -
Rob Evans -
Sasha Romijn -
Shane Kerr