[Osmf-talk] 3→4% figure source? | Re: Commitment to open communication channels

Rory McCann rory at technomancy.org
Wed Aug 19 16:11:32 UTC 2020


I didn't say I didn't like the evidence, I just looked at it, thought 
about it, and pointed out that it's not very strong evidence. That's 
perfectly fair, and rational, and pretty standard thing to talk about on 
this list.

I never made a statement about the breakdown of OSM members (whatever 
that means) by gender, so I have no duty to provide anything. 🙂

When someone says “X% of the board are $GROUP, but Y% (<<X) of the 
members are that group, ergo $GROUP isn't underrepresented on the board” 
(as Martin Koppenhoefer did), the obligation is on them to provide that 
evidence. And all I see is weak evidence. 🙂

On 19/08/2020 17:44, Thomas Barris wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Mi., 19. Aug. 2020 um 17:26 Uhr schrieb Rory McCann 
> <rory at technomancy.org <mailto:rory at technomancy.org>>:
> 
>     That research only looks at people editing nodes in the USA up to
>     February 2018, and they only looked at the top 2,000 users, and for
>     half
>     of those they were unable to assign a gender to the OSMer, and
>     seemed to
>     be based on “We look at their account, and tried to figure it out
>     ourselves”.
> 
>     Different regions in OSM have different types of communities, and I
>     think you can't generalize from the USA to the whole of OSM.
> 
>     It's not very strong evidence, especially if you're going to claim
>     relevant for something today.
> 
> A: Show me evidence
> B: Here you go
> A: Oh, not this, I don't like your evidence.  Show me something else
> 
> Maybe it is not the strongest evidence but as long as you don't provide 
> something else, it is the only evidence.
> 
> 
>     If all you have to go on is the 20→25% figure from Rome, then OSMF
>     board
>     is being *under-represented* w.r.t. non-males.
> 
> 
> So you prefer to believe this anecdotal evidence rather than the 
> mentioned researches just because it suits you? It is up to you to show 
> evidence that the status quo is an issue.
> 
> 
>     -- 
> 
>     (PS. replying from the right email account this time)
> 
>     On 19/08/2020 09:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      > sent from a phone
>      >
>      >> On 19. Aug 2020, at 09:14, Rory McCann
>     <rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org <mailto:rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org>>
>      >> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> Where's your evidence/What's your source for this 3→4% figure?
>      >
>      >
>      > I took if from this paper:
>      > https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3290605.3300793
>      >
>      > According to my local experience (e.g. Berlin Stammtisch) it seemed
>      > plausible (although in our Rome meetups we have much higher numbers,
>      > about 20-25%, but based on a very low total of 4-5 ;-) )
>      >
>      > I suppose in some environments the numbers may be higher
>     (professional
>      > mapping, e.g. HOT).
>      >
>      > Cheers Martin
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > osmf-talk mailing list
>      > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>      > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>      >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> 



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list