From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Jun 3 23:23:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id D050C9DB194; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 23:23:53 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-qt1-f182.google.com (mail-qt1-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F72B9DB193 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 23:23:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f182.google.com with SMTP id i68so3453078qtb.5 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceryinstitute.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QIp6UcBBjvf0lEkMCEKVpuE9ov/uWhDGZwg1e70vuwI=; b=Y2JQiefYFKkqNYtYKlIhUm7kqVwAMaGCLYzyWNbxl81Ol/WfooYP9DmoKjFbhViX72 tl8jguVOUBOcLBvY44LThD3tRJ9ZQE76W6Y21EvdimEARDhF+PcgoJ3xGFBwDJfswDTG 4Yv4vs6OjvV9WNULqhjv7bGlKZIc6PIveI5NuAkfmtEc1sFU1RTn04IwtuMR5LbOwarA SWnFueqA4z8SXmxPUwgquFAIKpf0f+nSSQlyRA+gEYGgM4Hbw+vFIdYDdyaj9BUtd22C RF5dsD1k0VRI7S+BwP1B4rab0mb2GPQ3prb3szZKsD4TFmoScKx5rDfSFw+5FKMNRcAc FDkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QIp6UcBBjvf0lEkMCEKVpuE9ov/uWhDGZwg1e70vuwI=; b=r9k+/WXrNA/zYk+LgOKtTM70H99aV6p4xPLXQuQXPsnXF1jA5gFmi7nbj7VkIsBmn2 YQMNy5eDdgnCy/ELTC225Lc/pI9ITEWPazP016PRh2ODrewBtkZR/TcE8edPd572SZHI aajQmzt5s0B4SmI/WWK66sQWM8DRuC4wdasKIwUU9BAHwwDML6+HArnEE7XSu0hZ0vpf Xmwe0HhXHwRbmPsSWYawwPXCGMEgrxjQXodQc5yRKo36fS0TTI9OBs6Ben6sOliQXjIg 3FzH+CKBO4nGC915lC6UPSXdzGO5wDKzfiRbHyQSy43NjQlQTnoISZ8IZcV98MdIbTtB Ih3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530O3KJ/atHs0ZWzcc7u5RiOX/HfquH9QtTGC9d8pNYvHyfU4Sr5 Yq8J9edRuq6Hr2ut8AxQV8miYpF9bzgfEPggxq6aCw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVysrCtae/Liek00yCnMmFy3DJFBPj2fRE6psj8Jif9mbtpeU9eX8zUAUgzRratUB+UykPKC2yoeFue1f4Klw= X-Received: by 2002:aed:3f25:: with SMTP id p34mr1376710qtf.92.1591219431795; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:23:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200603210748.AE1FB9DB193@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20200603210748.AE1FB9DB193@www.open-std.org> From: Damian Rouson Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:23:41 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [J3] (SC22WG5.6224) [Fwd: [SC22] ISO Gender Action Plan Survey] To: General J3 interest list Cc: sc22wg5 , Van Snyder Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe05fd05a734a49e" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --000000000000fe05fd05a734a49e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Van, This latest response is absolutely horrific and doubles-down on defending an inaccurate understanding of our committee's charge. Bryce communicated quite clearly that your previous email was unacceptable. This one is even worse. I hope some action will be taken to ensure that the committee is not subjected to further divisive and corrosive communications. Damian On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:07 PM Van Snyder via J3 wrote: > Brian Friesen bfriesen at lbl.gov Tue Jun 2 17:45:16 EDT 2020 wrote > > Gender imbalance in computer science and other STEM fields has been > studied in enormous depth... there is a wealth of information which > can help us to understand it in more detail. > > Bill Long longb at cray.com Tue Jun 2 18:25:30 EDT 2020 wrote > > Brian is right that the issue of few women in the computer field has > been studied exhaustively. While the WG5 effort is good- > intentioned, I fear it is focused at the wrong end of the career > pipeline. > > So it's not obvious why UN/ISO need J3 and WG5 to waste our time to > study it in further detail. Perhaps ISO should study the existing in- > depth studies instead of doing yet another one. These pointless and > repetitive studies might be part of the reason that ISO standards are > so expensive. If ISO stuck to standards instead of thought policing, > maybe their overhead would be lower. > > My remark that the survey is absurdly irrelevant politics follows from > an observation that the only reason for such surveys is an asssumption > that "inadequate" diversity is somehow the fault of everybody who isn't > sufficiently diverse. I find that proposition intensely offensive. > > "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" > > Gender diversity (or the lack thereof) is not the collective fault of > WG5 or individually of every WG5 member -- unless you're one who > believes that every social evil implies collective instead of > individual guilt. Any individual who opposes any kind of diversity can > rightly be castigated. Any group that opposes any kind of diversity as > a matter of policy can rightly be castigated. But I don't oppose > diversity, and wouldn't join a group that does. Assuming everybody is > at fault is profoundly offensive. It's not my fault that primary school > teachers who don't have any knowledge or understanding of science, > technology, engineering or mathematics start at a very early age to > convince minority and female children that "STEM are anti-social, and > even if they aren't, they're too hard for you." I observed this first- > hand with my own daughters, and my friends' neighbors', and colleagues' > children. This starts in our schools of education. My son-in-law had to > take a Master's Degree in education to get a certificate in the county > where he teaches. He calls it a "Master's Degree in Drivel." That's > where UN/ISO should start if they really believe it's their > responsibility to address the problem. That's where I started, with my > local school board and PTA, and the California State Superintendent of > Public Instruction (whose daughter was in my Russian class in 1963). > > Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash brycelelbach at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 > 21:13:02 EDT 2020 wrote > > I also want to make this clear: comments like this are not > acceptable. > > Thought police are not acceptable anywhere. If Bryce really believes > that thought policing is important, perhaps a career move from SC22 to > a twitter or facebook censorship position would be in order. > Fortunately, the WG5 mailing list does not yet have a censor. > > > --000000000000fe05fd05a734a49e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Van,

This latest response is absolutely= horrific and doubles-down on defending an inaccurate understanding of our = committee's charge.=C2=A0 Bryce communicated quite clearly that your pr= evious email was unacceptable. This one is even worse.=C2=A0 I hope some ac= tion will be taken to ensure that the committee is not subjected to further= divisive and corrosive communications.

Damian

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:07 PM Van Snyder via J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
=
Brian Friesen bfriesen at= lbl.gov Tue Jun 2 17:45:16 EDT 2020 wrote

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Gender imbalance in computer science and other STEM fields has= been
=C2=A0 =C2=A0studied in enormous depth... there is a wealth of information = which
=C2=A0 =C2=A0can help us to understand it in more detail.

Bill Long longb at cray.com Tue Jun 2 18:25:30 EDT 2020 wrote

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Brian is right that the issue of few women in the computer fie= ld has
=C2=A0 =C2=A0been studied exhaustively.=C2=A0 =C2=A0While the WG5 effort is= good-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0intentioned, I fear it is focused at the wrong end of the care= er
=C2=A0 =C2=A0pipeline.

So it's not obvious why UN/ISO need J3 and WG5 to waste our time to
study it in further detail. Perhaps ISO should study the existing in-
depth studies instead of doing yet another one. These pointless and
repetitive studies might be part of the reason that ISO standards are
so expensive. If ISO stuck to standards instead of thought policing,
maybe their overhead would be lower.

My remark that the survey is absurdly irrelevant politics follows from
an observation that the only reason for such surveys is an asssumption
that "inadequate" diversity is somehow the fault of everybody who= isn't
sufficiently diverse. I find that proposition intensely offensive.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Gender diversity (or the lack thereof) is not the collective fault of
WG5 or individually of every WG5 member -- unless you're one who
believes that every social evil implies collective instead of
individual guilt. Any individual who opposes any kind of diversity can
rightly be castigated. Any group that opposes any kind of diversity as
a matter of policy can rightly be castigated. But I don't oppose
diversity, and wouldn't join a group that does. Assuming everybody is at fault is profoundly offensive. It's not my fault that primary school=
teachers who don't have any knowledge or understanding of science,
technology, engineering or mathematics start at a very early age to
convince minority and female children that "STEM are anti-social, and<= br> even if they aren't, they're too hard for you." I observed thi= s first-
hand with my own daughters, and my friends' neighbors', and colleag= ues'
children. This starts in our schools of education. My son-in-law had to
take a Master's Degree in education to get a certificate in the county<= br> where he teaches. He calls it a "Master's Degree in Drivel."= =C2=A0 That's
where UN/ISO should start if they really believe it's their
responsibility to address the problem. That's where I started, with my<= br> local school board and PTA, and the California State Superintendent of
Public Instruction (whose daughter was in my Russian class in 1963).

Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash brycelelbach at gmail.com Tue Jun=C2=A0 2
21:13:02 EDT 2020 wrote

=C2=A0 =C2=A0I also want to make this clear: comments like this are not
=C2=A0 =C2=A0acceptable.

Thought police are not acceptable anywhere. If Bryce really believes
that thought policing is important, perhaps a career move from SC22 to
a twitter or facebook censorship position would be in order.
Fortunately, the WG5 mailing list does not yet have a censor.


--000000000000fe05fd05a734a49e--