Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2457 bytes --]

Hi Don,

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:

> (First of all, it’s Don, rather than Dan; I think Johannes’s
> auto-correct got the best of him at one point in his email :D )

Yep, sorry for that!

> I think this is a wonderful idea.
>
> First, I am myself a white cis-het male; my participation in any such
> summit would be predicated on ensuring that we have a diversity of
> voices present, as I think it is foolish to have a conversation about
> inclusivity and equity with only white voices like mine speaking. I
> hope and expect that we are planning for that.
>
> Given the concerns about being recorded, perhaps my experience running
> Maintainerati events might be helpful. Maintainerati (if you hadn’t
> heard of it) is a series of events that gather open source maintainers
> into unconference-style conversations about the challenges they face,
> and finding solutions to those problems. The events are operated under
> Chattham House rules, ensuring the anonymity of participants who wish
> to remain so. Even so, the goal of the events is to not only document
> the conversations that happened, but to create a set of documents that
> allow the conversation to continue long after the event is over, as
> well as providing a blueprint for concrete action. It is not difficult
> to set up the necessary conditions to make this work, although we will
> need dedicated note-takers willing to undergo about 30 minutes of
> training. I would be happy to put in the effort to make this kind of
> thing happen, if this sounds helpful.

Thank you for the offer and describing your experience.

I might be completely wrong, but in this instance, I have the impression
that for the topic of changing the default main branch name, a Chattham
House rules meeting might not even be _all_ that crucial. Let me explain
why:

The primary purpose of this meeting, from my point of view, is to align
and coordinate, to set out goals that we want to agree on. Where "we" is
"the core Git contributors".

And from what I see, I am happy to report that I see a lot of alignment
already. There was no "nah, why bother?" response, which made me very
happy, personally.

Every active contributor seems to agree that this is worth doing, and
since I am doing the bulk work (with a lot of help from your side, thank
you so much!), there is not even the question "but who will do it?".

Ciao,
Dscho