Re: Spi-general Digest, Vol 159, Issue 2

Hello all,

I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment on this - I have not been able to join
SPI formally as the "Apply" link under Membership on the website it broken.

I agree with rescinding the positions of SPI Board Advisors. It's
problematic to allow these (all male) people to continue on in those
positions, when people like myself who are very interested can't even join
SPI as a member. It's offensive, and as Martin pointed out, doesn't
reflect reality. It's very misleading with regards to their role in/with
SPI. Why would they continue to have these titles if they're not
interested/not doing anything special? I would infer that advisors for a
project are consulted, and if they were not, I would question the entire
communications and governance of the project (which I am now doing). I
would recommend SPI brings on productive/interested advisors if they will
continue recognizing these positions/titles, and to actually consult the
advisors. If the current advisors want to play an active role in
consultation, then they could keep their title/role. I would like to put
my name forward as the Diversity and Inclusion Advisor, if advisors will
remain.

With regards to Filipus's comment, "Nor would I consider gender imbalance
as a problem per se": Gender imbalance is a huge problem in SPI, please
stop denying that this is a massive, glaring problem, and looks terrible
for SPI's current optics in terms of inclusiveness and diversity. Again,
as an outsider (who also happens to be female) I can honestly say that SPI
looks, from the outside, to be a cis-white-middle-aged-male-debian "Boys'
club". Gender imbalance is absolutely a problem per se, as is the lack of
other types of diversity.

Sincerely,
Katie McMillan

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:00 AM <spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org>
wrote:

> Send Spi-general mailing list submissions to
> spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> spi-general-owner(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Spi-general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Martin Michlmayr)
> 2. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Luca Filipozzi)
> 3. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Bdale Garbee)
> 4. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Martin Michlmayr)
> 5. Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors (Filipus Klutiero)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:36:06 +0200
> From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com>
> To: Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org>
> Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <20191209203606(dot)GA29219(at)jirafa(dot)cyrius(dot)com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> * Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org> [2019-12-09 20:17]:
> > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board was
> > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board Advisors
> > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It is
> > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board
> Advisors.
>
> I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
> i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
> that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
> invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
> advisors).
>
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> https://www.cyrius.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:49:48 +0000
> From: Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
> To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <20191209224948(dot)menxx5kgkkwrt7hb(at)snafu(dot)emyr(dot)net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 10:36:06PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org> [2019-12-09 20:17]:
> > > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board
> was
> > > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board
> Advisors
> > > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It
> is
> > > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board
> Advisors.
> >
> > I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
> > i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
> > that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
> > invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
> > advisors).
>
> That plus:
> - (1) we don't actually reach out to the advisors for input (as far as
> I've seen since I was elected a few years ago)
> - (2) if we want input from someone, we can just ask them without
> appointing them as an advisor
>
> --
> Luca Filipozzi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:59:07 -0700
> From: Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com>
> To: Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <87blshyukk(dot)fsf(at)gag(dot)com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org> writes:
>
> > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board was
> > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board Advisors
> > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It is
> > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board
> > Advisors.
>
> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
>
> Bdale
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 832 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20191209/69639f1f/attachment-0001.pgp
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 01:19:03 +0200
> From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com>
> To: Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com>
> Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <20191209231903(dot)GB29219(at)jirafa(dot)cyrius(dot)com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> * Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> [2019-12-09 15:59]:
> > It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
> > just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> > appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
>
> Make sure reality is reflected.
>
> The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
> in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that. It also creates
> more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
> an advisor?)
>
> (For the record, I'm not on the board and can't speak for SPI. But I
> brought this up when I was on the board and had the action item to
> write a resolution, which unfortunately I never did.)
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> https://www.cyrius.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:12:04 -0500
> From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com>
> To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board
> advisors
> Message-ID: <f2696ab9-4131-e1a3-ad1f-5851abf7ab16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 2019-12-09 ? 18:19, Martin Michlmayr a ?crit?:
> > * Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> [2019-12-09 15:59]:
> >> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
> >> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> >> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
> > Make sure reality is reflected.
> >
> > The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
> > in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that.
>
>
> I find it quite natural in a mostly open project like this one that
> advisors are not explicitly consulted. I would not infer from a presence
> in such an SPI advisor list that a person is explicitly consulted.
>
>
> > It also creates
> > more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
> > an advisor?)
>
> I do not see balance between projects (whatever that means) as a goal.
> Nor would I consider gender imbalance as a problem per se. To discuss
> genders, the problem I could see is a lack of feminine presence. But I
> expelling productive males would be a costly solution to that, if it can
> be one.
>
> I never heard about advisor creating any kind of imbalance (though I
> must say I was also unaware of their existence).
>
>
> That being said, I have no strong opinion on this, though if we don't
> publish a list of current advisors, as seems to be the case, I would
> tend to support abolition.
>
> >
> > [...]
>
> --
> Filipus Klutiero
> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
>
> End of Spi-general Digest, Vol 159, Issue 2
> *******************************************
>