Glen Fernandes Via Boost wrote:

On Thursday, August 23, 2018, Niall Douglas wrote:

...

Boost has always functioned as a strictly equal meritocracy. You get judged here completely independent of who or what you are.

+1. +1

Adam

On 8/23/2018 2:53 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

I was hoping why don't we also apply for GNOME outreachy also it is also similar to GSoC and can also help our community to grow. and by appearing in end of year internship in GNOME outreachy we can keep a flow of new contributors and motivate people to contribute to opensource throughout the year.

Boost has always functioned as a strictly equal meritocracy. You get judged here completely independent of who or what you are. We, quite frankly, don't care so long as you can write excellent C++ and defend that C++ in front of everyone else here. Some long standing members here have pseudonyms for various personal reasons, and nobody cares.

Outreachy requires orgs to practice discrimination of a form which is illegal in some parts of the world. I certainly could not abide by it, it contravenes EU human rights legislation, and I also find it morally wrong.

Do you have more information to back up your assertions ? I know nothing about "outreachy" but I see nothing whatever in the description of the organization which suggests discriminatory practices. Or do you really believe that an organization for, let us say, people who have 6 fingers on their right hand, is discriminatory because people who do not have 6 fingers on their right hand are being discriminated against ? My response has nothing to do with whether Boost should support "outreachy" but with your claims above about "discrimination", "EU human rights legislation" and morality. I find your claims outlandish without any given proof. Your other remark that Boost is interested in people who show expertise in C++ I agree with. But I do not see why Boost should only be interested in people who show expertise in C++ depending on what organization(s) they belong to.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 02:27, Gavin Lambert via Boost wrote:

... based on race or gender or sexuality, which is fairly universally regarded as bad.

You left out nationality (the bit about Americans). WOW, it's really amazing, I think Niall is right degski (hesitating between genderqueer and genderfree) -- *“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop" - Herbert Stein* *“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth" - Rudolph W. L. Giuliani*

Brief web search should explain the issues. Alternatively, this story should

https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html

I wouldn't necessarily draw from LLVM an opinion for Boost, as indeed some recently received private email pointed out (let's call it "passionately worded", it's weird how boost-dev is my sole source of such kind of email, despite me participating in over a dozen mailing lists and forums). Setting aside the moral or legal issues with discrimination based on sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, or birth (the UN and ECHR definition I believe), I also don't think there is any such problem in the C++ community, except in one regard which I'll come back to. Speaking as a former GSoC admin, many of our students - perhaps even most - came particularly from the poorer parts of the world where the GSoC stipend is worth a lot more. I don't think there is any racial diversity problem. We definitely showed excessive selection bias towards those who wrote good English, and I did a lot of work to try and debias that towards people who could code instead. But even then, in the statistical analyses of our ranking patterns, I never discerned any bias regarding applicant. As anyone who has attended a C++ conference or standards meeting knows, there is a wide fluidity of folk, some of the more fluid of which are amongst the highest esteemed engineers in C++. Nobody sees anything once people start discussing C++. I don't think there is any LGBT diversity problem, if anything in terms of percentages I think we're ahead of general society, possibly precisely because we don't see anything but expertise in C++. In all this, C++ has a very similar community to Physics, where a very similar culture prevails. In fact, the staff at C++ Now in Aspen often comment on the similarities, because the Physics conference is very close date wise to C++ Now, and apart from us being a bit plumper on average, and wearing more t-shirts, it is apparently hard to tell us apart. Where I do think we have a diversity problem is in female participation, and I think that has similar reasons for a similar lack of participation as in Physics (the percentage of women is almost identical). In my five years at GSoC I believe we only ever had one woman as a student, and that was despite my best efforts to do better. I'd need to go dig out the spreadsheets, but the cause was lack of female applications. I don't think we ever received more than five out of many hundreds of applications. And incidentally, the very worst of those applications was vastly better than the average we receive. Now *that* diversity problem I'd very much like to do something about as that's a real problem in C++. I know me and Jon Kalb and lots of others have discussed this problem in depth, and on multiple occasions, and the conference organisers have adopted codes of conduct and other welcoming measures, plus some of the folk at ACCU have worked on increasing bringing more kids into C++ via coding camps and so on. So it's not like nothing is being done about this. But equally, like in Physics, it's very tough to do better if the C++ employment culture is uncompetitive for women. What few women start out in a career in C++ see a marked exodus about five years in, they move into management or into a different technology, and I find that unwelcome. But also illustrative - C++ has a very traditional employment culture compared to say web development, or Python, or even Rust. Employers expect you there onsite eight hours a day, there are a lot of legacy code bases full of arcane bespoke knowledge, and experience is often prioritised over capability in big multinationals. None of this makes C++ competitive to alternative choices for women whose work history may need to be more flexible, less full time, less buried in bespoke arcanery. Anyway, that's my ha'pennies worth on this topic: better to concentrate on problems specific to C++ rather than import culture wars from the US. And if you're reading this and you are in a position to enact workplace cultural changes more tolerant of part time work and other female participation friendly changes, please do make it happen. We get there incrementally only through individual change, and C++ needs to compete better against other programming language ecosystems and cultures than it has been doing. Niall

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 11:44, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

But equally, like in Physics, it's very tough to do better if the C++ employment culture is uncompetitive for women. What few women start out in a career in C++ see a marked exodus about five years in, they move into management or into a different technology, and I find that unwelcome.

Although I agree on almost if not all points you make, I DO think that the gender angle is being (generally) approached in a far too simple way (dictated by political correctness). Sensible people embrace equality and non-discrimination, the latter being differentiating people (positively or negatively) on irrelevant (to the question) criteria/qualities. IMHO, many (most, but certainly not all) women view the world differently from men, and (for good or for bad) have different priorities [in life] than men. I think that's the main reason behind the low participation of women in C++, many women simply don't find C++, and/or programming in general, very interesting as an occupation (similarly to matchbox toy cars). When we talk about equality between men and women, we should not make the mistake to extend that to "women are, or should be, the same as men", they are not (that's what makes the world rather interesting actually, if I'd have to discuss the latest football-match with women as well, then that would be rather boring, I'd rather not talk about football (soccer) at all). Anyway, that's my ha'pennies worth on this topic: better to concentrate

on problems specific to C++ rather than import culture wars from the US.

Certainly not, it's crazy to see how PC the US is, while at the same time, positively discriminating Americans comes quite natural to them. degski -- *“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop" - Herbert Stein* *“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth" - Rudolph W. L. Giuliani*

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 3:44 AM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

As anyone who has attended a C++ conference or standards meeting knows, there is a wide fluidity of folk, some of the more fluid of which are amongst the highest esteemed engineers in C++. Nobody sees anything once people start discussing C++. I don't think there is any LGBT diversity problem, if anything in terms of percentages I think we're ahead of general society, possibly precisely because we don't see anything but expertise in C++.

I really feel like I have to say this is completely at odds with my experience at C++Now this year. It was one of the most intensely white, straight, male experiences of my life, in other words one of the least "fluid". There were several instances where conversations were unnecessarily injected with biases and jokes based on gender and nationality, and the conference culture seemed to be that this is perfectly fine. In addition, the final panel of five speakers were all men, a fact which nobody seemed to notice or even care about at all. The topic was "What Belongs in the C++ Standard Library", which made it especially ironic. You may think "nobody sees anything" here, but I guarantee you this attitude of ignoring the problem makes it even more uncomfortable for people like me who do not fit into the prevailing in-group and who do perceive the microaggressions you refuse to see. In fact, there is established research that shows people who believe they are being objective and "color-blind" in their decision making show increased bias. In addition, a statement like "we don't see anything but expertise in C++" makes it sound like anyone who does experience discrimination is either wrong or having bad luck. It's also reframing the problem -- I don't think people get turned off to this community just because the conversations around C++ itself are problematic, but rather because the opinions people express outside of that topic are not super welcoming. It's also a matter of people being habitually hypermasculine in the way they express themselves about C++, which is not discrimination per se but still has the effect of disinviting non-men. And I think the community needs to take ownership of that and not sweep it aside by pretending it isn't part of True C++ Community. Having attended several non-C++ conferences where I very much fit in as a gay man, I feel confident saying that C++Now is nowhere close in either numbers or inclusivity. I don't know what an LGBT diversity problem looks like to you, but that conference definitely has it. The point about percentages is completely vacuous unless you have numbers to back it up. Brian

But diversity is important enough to me that I will happily find the time to administer a Boost outreachy

I don't get how diversity is improved by excluding anyone who isn't a US resident. Or any of the other groups Outreachy excludes.

Do you realize that outreachy is a project of the Software Freedom Conservancy?

More than aware. Outreachy was originally pitched at Boost a few years back by employees of the SFC. They pushed it hard at the time, too.

The same Software Freedom Conservancy that has graciously and expertly managed the finances and legal matters for the Boost organization?

They did nothing graciously. They get paid 10% of everything we earn, which is many thousands of dollars per year.

Do you realize that the hard-working people from the Software Freedom Conservancy, who help sustain Boost, are probably on this list?

Of course. I am sure they have not forgotten any of my past interactions with them. Most of which are on the public record, in any case. The Software Freedom Conservancy provides administrative services for Boost, for which we pay them substantial fees. Administrative services are uncontroversial, either they get done, or don't, to some level of quality or other. I find it unfortunate that many of those who operate the SFC have used the SFC, which has only the remit to provide administrative services for open source orgs, and that remit alone, to act as a platform and launch pad and soapbox for non-administrative, non-engineering, and definitely non-C++ advocation of part of the US culture wars, which quite literally are nonsensical to most of the rest of the world. In my opinion, they should be politely be refused any purchase in that regard. I also think they should desist from using the SFC in that way, it feels improper, but that's up to them.

You basically just called some very hard-working and dedicated contributors to Boost criminals> It doesn't matter what your opinion of Outreachy is. I think you should show some respect to the people who run it, because they have done more to keep the Boost community going than either you or I.

In the future, choose your words more carefully.

I don't get why you'd suggest any of that. I chose my words accurately and carefully. You know as well as I do that criminality is based on jurisdiction. What is illegal in one place may not be in another. Outreachy does not operate outside the US. Therefore only US law applies to their behaviour, and US law permits "reverse" discrimination. It doesn't make what they're doing morally right, or anything Boost should involve itself in. There are far better ways of improving diversity than what they're doing. Some of the other threads in this topic have good ideas not requiring blatent discrimination. Niall

wrote:

I'd also like to ask people to refrain from having the "last word" on this thread.

Yes please, let us bring this to an amicable close. While I have everyone's attention, I'd like to tell you about this great Boost library it is called Beast, it implements the HTTP and WebSocket protocols, and you can find out more about at the official repository page: https://github.com/boostorg/beast/ As the original post was about internships for Boost library contributions, and since Beast has plenty of open issues and things yet to be written (https://github.com/boostorg/beast/issues), now seems like the perfect time to let everyone know that the maintainer of Beast welcomes pull requests from anyone, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or even political affiliation. In fact, contributions are welcome from pretty much everyone although if you are a closet TAB user please keep those TABS in the closet by converting them to SPACES before submitting your pull request. If your code is not quite up to level of quality needed for the library that's fine too, the author will be more than happy to provide a welcoming and inclusive code review to help you whip it into shape - you can see what these review comments look like by browsing the closed pull requests here: https://github.com/boostorg/beast/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+sort%3Acomment... For people who want to know more without having to read through a ton of documentation or technical notes here are some Beast-related videos for your enjoyment: "CppCon 2016: Vinnie Falco “Introducing Beast..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJZgRcvPFwI "CppCon 2017: Vinnie Falco “Make Classes Great Again! (Using Concepts for Customization Points)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsUnnYEKPnI "Securing Boost.Beast: A Non-Traditional Source Code Review" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TtyYbGDAj0 Thanks!

My point was simply that there would have been a better way to say what you had in mind. Niall Douglas wrote:

I don't get how diversity is improved by excluding anyone who isn't a US resident. Or any of the other groups Outreachy excludes.

It brings more people into the community, from demographic groups that are historically underrepresented. I do agree that it is unfortunate that the program is not available to non-US residents. But the program is not exclusive: it doesn't stop us from running other programs, like BSoC. P.S. For what it's worth, while we have a difference of opinion, and I think you are wrong here, I of course respect your opinion and your right to voice it, and always consider you a friend. On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 1:52 PM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

But diversity is important enough to me that I will happily find the time to administer a Boost outreachy

I don't get how diversity is improved by excluding anyone who isn't a US resident. Or any of the other groups Outreachy excludes.

...

Do you realize that outreachy is a project of the Software Freedom Conservancy?

More than aware. Outreachy was originally pitched at Boost a few years back by employees of the SFC. They pushed it hard at the time, too.

...

The same Software Freedom Conservancy that has graciously and expertly managed the finances and legal matters for the Boost organization?

They did nothing graciously. They get paid 10% of everything we earn, which is many thousands of dollars per year.

...

Do you realize that the hard-working people from the Software Freedom Conservancy, who help sustain Boost, are probably on this list?

Of course. I am sure they have not forgotten any of my past interactions with them. Most of which are on the public record, in any case.

The Software Freedom Conservancy provides administrative services for Boost, for which we pay them substantial fees. Administrative services are uncontroversial, either they get done, or don't, to some level of quality or other.

I find it unfortunate that many of those who operate the SFC have used the SFC, which has only the remit to provide administrative services for open source orgs, and that remit alone, to act as a platform and launch pad and soapbox for non-administrative, non-engineering, and definitely non-C++ advocation of part of the US culture wars, which quite literally are nonsensical to most of the rest of the world.

In my opinion, they should be politely be refused any purchase in that regard. I also think they should desist from using the SFC in that way, it feels improper, but that's up to them.

...

You basically just called some very hard-working and dedicated contributors to Boost criminals> It doesn't matter what your opinion of Outreachy is. I think you should show some respect to the people who run it, because they have done more to keep the Boost community going than either you or I.

In the future, choose your words more carefully.

I don't get why you'd suggest any of that. I chose my words accurately and carefully.

You know as well as I do that criminality is based on jurisdiction. What is illegal in one place may not be in another. Outreachy does not operate outside the US. Therefore only US law applies to their behaviour, and US law permits "reverse" discrimination.

It doesn't make what they're doing morally right, or anything Boost should involve itself in. There are far better ways of improving diversity than what they're doing. Some of the other threads in this topic have good ideas not requiring blatent discrimination.

Niall

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Andrey Semashev Via Boost wrote:

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 2:37 AM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Boost wrote:

...

Niall Douglas wrote:

...

I don't get how diversity is improved by excluding anyone who isn't a US resident. Or any of the other groups Outreachy excludes.

It brings more people into the community, from demographic groups that are historically underrepresented. What prevents those groups from being normally represented in Boost community? We don't ban people based on race or religion or gender or sexual orientation or whatever. Neither do we require people announce any of these personal aspects. So why do we need a program that does exercise such preference?

Boost is about C++, it is open to everyone who is interested in C++ and is generally a nice person and it should stay that way. I don't want Boost being associated with LGBT, race, political or whatever other activism, except for moving C++ forward.

I fully agree. Please don't inject any idology into C++ (no matter which one) because the next logical step of such endeavour is discussion about which one is the best, then attempts to apply principles from it, and the only outcome you'll bring will be division. I value Boost, appreciate being a contributor and would prefer it to stay this way. Adam

Here I believe that girls are raised differently than men and that's the main cause of interest in different fields but maybe if we participate in Google Code In we will have much younger contributors and if we get people interested in C++ at a younger age maybe it can solve the problem of gender imbalance in current C++ industry. I'm confused. Do you want to bring more people into C++ who choose to

Pranam Lashkari Via Boost wrote: pursue their interests and give them the opportunity to do it? If that's the case why is gender an important factor? Why do you even mention it at all? Or is the goal something different? Adam

I completely agree with you here. But my sole purpose of starting this thread was to participating in this kind of open source event so that new people get involved throughout the year and I thought GNOME outreachy would be a good opportunity but as discussion concluded outreachy is not an event boost would show much interest into. But there are many other events and such one is Google Code In. (Obviously, if we have byte size tasks which can be solved by a school student.)

Boost is in the enviable position of being very wealthy relative to 99% of open source orgs. We have cash aplenty. We don't need Outreachy funding. We easily could be funding several mentor-mentee projects per year, just out of our own income. And the Standard C++ Foundation probably could fund quite a few more, if we asked. Money isn't the problem here. What we are lacking in is sufficient suitable mentor-student pairings. We have a surplus of people wanting to be mentored, but they can't find mentors willing to mentor what they want to be mentored in. We also have a general shortage of willing mentors, though Boost members have been more than generous on this relative to other orgs for GSoC. So I don't think awareness, or publicity, or new blood, or funding are the problem here. Incidentally, we did try hard to get Boost into Google Code-In a few years back, and we got exactly one willing mentor, and even then I felt they were asking a bit much from a high school student. There is a reason why most of our GSoC students are postgraduate students, it's only then that they're able to contribute usefully enough to get a mentor to agree to mentor them. I'd love to change this, but short of paying mentors at market rate which we definitely can't afford, I'm not sure what more can be done. Niall