OpenThreads: The Community of Mailing Lists presented at FOSS4G-NA

849 views

Published on

OpenThreads is a platform for analysis and visualization of mailing lists. The tools included here make it possible to parse the conversations from pipermail and mailman lists into participants, messages, and threads for visualization and analysis. Our goal is to create an open platform that everyone can use to analyze their communities, with a goal of provoking conversation around how open our communities are and how to continue to improve upon the quality and diversity of that openness. See https://github.com/elationfoundation/openThreads for more info!

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
849
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

OpenThreads: The Community of Mailing Lists presented at FOSS4G-NA

  1. 1. OpenThreadsthe community of open source mailing lists@alyssapwright@georgiamoon
  2. 2. mapmeter.commapmeter.com
  3. 3. Hello.From awright at opengeo.orgFrom georgia at opentechinstitute.orgThu May 23 1:00:18 2013Subject: [openthreads] hello?
  4. 4. Hello Community.Together we create software of value.
  5. 5. Hello World.Together we bring that value to a globalcommunity.
  6. 6. We Get That.
  7. 7. “Increase involvement of the community”“Increase the number of code contributors”deegree: 2010 reportOSGeo Annual Report
  8. 8. “Need more community feedback”More volunteers for documentation, manuals and tutorialsOSGeo Annual Reportmapbender: 2010 report
  9. 9. “Need more people to advocate for OSGeo”and help translate documentation!OSGeo Annual Reportfrancophone chapter: 2010 report
  10. 10. Where is our “Community”?
  11. 11. mailing lists!
  12. 12. Who is our community?The specifics of the gender gap
  13. 13. -----interactive session!-----
  14. 14. % of women in technology?
  15. 15. 27%% of women in technology?
  16. 16. % of women in wikipedia?
  17. 17. % of women in wikipedia?9%
  18. 18. % of women speakers at this conference?
  19. 19. % of women speakers at this conference?7%
  20. 20. % of women in VGI?
  21. 21. % of women in VGI?3%
  22. 22. % of women in FOSS?
  23. 23. 1%% of women in FOSS?
  24. 24. Is this a problem?(We have been asked this question.)
  25. 25. “Maybe girls don’t like math,
  26. 26. or maps,
  27. 27. or open stuff.”(paraphrased)
  28. 28. “Sure. Maybe FOSS4G
  29. 29. is a man’s field,
  30. 30. like construction work- @alyssapwright
  31. 31. or firefighting.”- @alyssapwright
  32. 32. (was that uncomfortable?)
  33. 33. (is this better?)
  34. 34. Maybe we all accept(deep breath)
  35. 35. This is a problem.
  36. 36. We want our toolsto continue to grow and add value.
  37. 37. We want our softwareto reach new populations.
  38. 38. We want our solutionsto be even better.
  39. 39. We need more menand more women.
  40. 40. The collective intelligence ofdiversity
  41. 41. not only expands the reach of our communityThe collective intelligence ofdiversity
  42. 42. but the sustainability of our tools.
  43. 43. Becausetechnologyis created in a certain context, incertain conversations.Lam et al 2011 | Callahan & Herring 2011
  44. 44. The future of our workdepends on attracting morewhite males
  45. 45. and more other under-represented groups.
  46. 46. OK. No big deal.We fix problems all day.
  47. 47. So let’s look at why.Why the FOSS discrepancy?
  48. 48. There are many possible reasons...
  49. 49. Maybe women have different communicationstyles than men.Judd Atkin, 2012
  50. 50. Maybe the few restrictions on how peopletreat each other creates permission fordiscrimination.Reagle, 2013
  51. 51. Maybe there is inertia. I mean, this was acommunity started by a lot of men, with aparticular ideology...why fight old men?Judd Atkin, 2012
  52. 52. Maybe there’s a incentive and motivationgap. (e.g., Women and men relate tocompetition differently.)Judd Atkin, 2012
  53. 53. Maybe there’s active hostility towardsdifference.Wikipedia, 2012
  54. 54. -----side bar-----
  55. 55. % of women who reported beingassaulted, attacked, or treated poorlyby colleagues on projects?
  56. 56. 30%% of women who reported beingassaulted, attacked, or treated poorlyby colleagues on projects?
  57. 57. -----that’s a lot of hounds-----
  58. 58. and we are all responsible.
  59. 59. Too many of us have witnessed:
  60. 60. The mailing listtemper tantrum.
  61. 61. The joust fortechnical supremacy.
  62. 62. The snub of anewbie.
  63. 63. And many more havesimply hesitated...to ask for help,to participate,to engage,to question.
  64. 64. We all know that are online communicationsare complicated spaces, full of complicatedrelationships,
  65. 65. and cats.
  66. 66. OpenThreadslooks at those relationships
  67. 67. OpenThreadslooks to structure that context
  68. 68. and leaves the cats alone.
  69. 69. Methodology
  70. 70. 00Assemble the TeamSeamus TuohyTech Lead | Rhetorical Analysis (Open Technology Institute)Georgia BullenCreative Lead | Data Visualization (Open Technology Institute)Alyssa WrightProduct Manager | Professional Nagging (OpenGeo)
  71. 71. 01Frame the ProblemOpen GovernmentMemorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
  72. 72. 02Ask the Questions
  73. 73. 03Structure the DataParticipantauthor of an emailMessagebody of an emailThreadseries of messages posted as replies to each other
  74. 74. 03participantparticipantIDtotalPostsaverageRepliesstarter : threads started / total #engagement : Average number of replies a user has per threadresponse : replies/ totalcontrol : # of replies / # threads started by participanttimeSpent : total time spentnamelistgenderentryTimelastPostmessagesthreadstype: participant
  75. 75. 03messagemsgIDlistminutes : time spent metric - words per email (given a words perminute count)msgType : message type, categorical (forward, question,reply, ...)date : sent timedategender : gender of the senderthreadIDparticipantIDtype: message
  76. 76. 03threadthreadIDwritingTime : minutes spentliststart timedateend timedatecalendarTime: total calendar time of the threadgenderBalance : count of genderparticipantsmessagestype: thread
  77. 77. 04Parse the Mailing ListsTypesdiscussion | user | developerFormatpipermail | mailmanTechnologycouchDB | python | d3
  78. 78. 04https://github.com/elationfoundation/openThreadsgithub
  79. 79. 04discussion: libtechuser: talk-usdeveloper: postgis-devInitial Mailing Lists
  80. 80. 05Visualize to Analyze
  81. 81. Technical ChallengesPeople use multiple e-mails/namesidentifying the identity behind a voice can be difficultGender is difficult to parserequires community reviewHeaders: StandardizedBodies: Not StandardizedEmail datesvaries in format05
  82. 82. 06What’s Next?Scoresactivity | influence | relationListsyour lists | google groupsCommunityunderstand behavior patterns across communities
  83. 83. 06Activity ScoreQuantity of initiated messagesQuantity of responsesTime taken to respond
  84. 84. 06Influence ScoreInitiated conversationsRatio of initial poster vs others in the threadDialogue with new people
  85. 85. 06Relation ScoreMale > Male | Female > FemaleMale > Female | Female > Male
  86. 86. 06Google Groupscan’t export data from google groups.can only retrieve messages one-by-one.
  87. 87. 06Join us!more lists +more questions +more visualizations +more analysis +more awareness +more self-reflection +more focused initiatives =more diversity + better software
  88. 88. Tactics of InclusionThe party bag
  89. 89. GNOME
  90. 90. Internship for GNOME project10 OSS project involvedSuccess
  91. 91. Address women directly.Accept non-students and non-coders.Connect women with mentors.Require a contributionNo pressure for really ambitious projects.Approach
  92. 92. Etsy
  93. 93. GNOMEattracted 500% more female engineersSuccess
  94. 94. GNOMEInvesttrained junior women for hiringPartneralliances with other organizationsMake a Public Standsuccess breeds successApproach
  95. 95. RecommendationAddress GenderMake gender an explicit part of anyintervention. Increasing gender increasesrepresentation of other groups as well.
  96. 96. Personal RecommendationConsciously come from a place of trust.Do not attack.Make a public commitment.Talk openly about what’s not working.Use research to focus on action.
  97. 97. Appendix
  98. 98. random imagesmaybe for later
  99. 99. technical challengesPeople use multiple e-mails/namesidentifying the identity behind a voice can be difficultGender is difficult to parserequires community reviewHeaders: StandardizedBodies: Not StandardizedEmail datesvaries in format
  100. 100. ourmethodology
  101. 101. ourmethodology
  102. 102. our
  103. 103. breaking. mailing lists can be

×