Re: Git in Outreachy Dec-Mar?

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> >   - it naturally limits the candidate pool to under-represented groups
> >     (which is the whole point of the program, but if you don't
> >     actually care about that, then it's just a complication)
> > 
> > So IMHO it's easily worth the trouble.
> 
> I am willing to mentor, and the only reason that kept me from already
> stepping forward and trying to brush up the landing page is this concern:
> traditionally, we (as in: the core Git contributors) have been less than
> successful in attracting and retaining contributors from under-represented
> groups. I don't think any regular reader of this mailing list can deny
> that.
> 
> And while I find it very important to reach out (there are just *so* many
> benefits to having a more diverse team), I have to ask *why* we are so
> unsuccessful. As long as we do not even know the answer to that, is it
> even worth pursuing Outreachy?
> 
> I mean, if we make serious mistakes here, without even realizing, that
> directly lead to being stuck in our old bubble, then we are prone to
> simply repeat those mistakes over and over and over again. And that would
> just be a waste of our time, *and* a big de-motivator for the Outreachy
> students.
> 
> What's your take on this?

My feeling is that our lack of diversity has less to do with driving out
diverse candidates, and more that they do not join in the first place.
Which isn't to say we _wouldn't_ drive out diversity, but that I'm not
sure we have very good data on what happens in that second stage. If we
can use the program to overcome "step 1", that helps us get that data
(and hopefully react to it in time to be useful, and not just use the
candidate as a guinea pig; I agree there is the possibility of doing
more harm than good to a student who becomes de-motivated).

That leaves aside the question of whether things we are doing prevent
people from participating in the first place. I'm certainly open to that
idea, but I think it's a separate discussion.

-Peff