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!

1. OpenThreadsthe community of open source mailing lists
@alyssapwright
@georgiamoon

3. mapmeter.commapmeter.com

4. Hello.
From awright at opengeo.org
From georgia at opentechinstitute.org
Thu May 23 1:00:18 2013
Subject: [openthreads] hello?

5. Hello Community.
Together we create software of value.

6. Hello World.
Together we bring that value to a global
community.

7. We Get That.

8. “Increase involvement of the community”
“Increase the number of code contributors”
deegree: 2010 report
OSGeo Annual Report

9. “Need more community feedback”
More volunteers for documentation, manuals and tutorials
OSGeo Annual Report
mapbender: 2010 report

10. “Need more people to advocate for OSGeo”
and help translate documentation!
OSGeo Annual Report
francophone chapter: 2010 report

11. Where is our “Community”?

12. mailing lists!

13. Who is our community?
The specifics of the gender gap

14. -----interactive session!-----

15. % of women in technology?

16. 27%
% of women in technology?

17. % of women in wikipedia?

18. % of women in wikipedia?
9%

19. % of women speakers at this conference?

20. % of women speakers at this conference?
7%

21. % of women in VGI?

22. % of women in VGI?
3%

23. % of women in FOSS?

24. 1%
% of women in FOSS?

26. Is this a problem?
(We have been asked this question.)

27. “Maybe girls don’t like math,

28. or maps,

29. or open stuff.”
(paraphrased)

30. “Sure. Maybe FOSS4G

31. is a man’s field,

32. like construction work
- @alyssapwright

33. or firefighting.”
- @alyssapwright

35. (was that uncomfortable?)

36. (is this better?)

38. Maybe we all accept
(deep breath)

39. This is a problem.

40. We want our tools
to continue to grow and add value.

41. We want our software
to reach new populations.

42. We want our solutions
to be even better.

43. We need more men
and more women.

44. The collective intelligence of
diversity

45. not only expands the reach of our community
The collective intelligence of
diversity

46. but the sustainability of our tools.

47. Because
technology
is created in a certain context, in
certain conversations.
Lam et al 2011 | Callahan & Herring 2011

48. The future of our work
depends on attracting more
white males

49. and more other under-
represented groups.

50. OK. No big deal.
We fix problems all day.

51. So let’s look at why.
Why the FOSS discrepancy?

52. There are many possible reasons...

53. Maybe women have different communication
styles than men.
Judd Atkin, 2012

54. Maybe the few restrictions on how people
treat each other creates permission for
discrimination.
Reagle, 2013

55. Maybe there is inertia. I mean, this was a
community started by a lot of men, with a
particular ideology...why fight old men?
Judd Atkin, 2012

56. Maybe there’s a incentive and motivation
gap. (e.g., Women and men relate to
competition differently.)
Judd Atkin, 2012

57. Maybe there’s active hostility towards
difference.
Wikipedia, 2012

58. -----side bar-----

59. % of women who reported being
assaulted, attacked, or treated poorly
by colleagues on projects?

60. 30%
% of women who reported being
assaulted, attacked, or treated poorly
by colleagues on projects?

61. -----that’s a lot of hounds-----

63. and we are all responsible.

64. Too many of us have witnessed:

65. The mailing list
temper tantrum.

66. The joust for
technical supremacy.

67. The snub of a
newbie.

68. And many more have
simply hesitated...
to ask for help,
to participate,
to engage,
to question.

69. We all know that are online communications
are complicated spaces, full of complicated
relationships,

70. and cats.

71. OpenThreads
looks at those relationships

72. OpenThreads
looks to structure that context

73. and leaves the cats alone.

74. Methodology

75. 00
Assemble the Team
Seamus Tuohy
Tech Lead | Rhetorical Analysis (Open Technology Institute)
Georgia Bullen
Creative Lead | Data Visualization (Open Technology Institute)
Alyssa Wright
Product Manager | Professional Nagging (OpenGeo)

76. 01
Frame the Problem
Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

78. 02
Ask the Questions

80. 03
Structure the Data
Participant
author of an email
Message
body of an email
Thread
series of messages posted as replies to each other

81. 03
participant
participantID
totalPosts
averageReplies
starter : threads started / total #
engagement : Average number of replies a user has per thread
response : replies/ total
control : # of replies / # threads started by participant
timeSpent : total time spent
name
list
gender
entryTime
lastPost
messages
threads
type: participant

82. 03
message
msgID
list
minutes : time spent metric - words per email (given a words per
minute count)
msgType : message type, categorical (forward, question,
reply, ...)
date : sent timedate
gender : gender of the sender
threadID
participantID
type: message

83. 03
thread
threadID
writingTime : minutes spent
list
start timedate
end timedate
calendarTime: total calendar time of the thread
genderBalance : count of gender
participants
messages
type: thread

84. 04
Parse the Mailing Lists
Types
discussion | user | developer
Format
pipermail | mailman
Technology
couchDB | python | d3

85. 04
https://github.com/elationfoundation/
openThreads
github

86. 04
discussion: libtech
user: talk-us
developer: postgis-dev
Initial Mailing Lists

87. 05
Visualize to Analyze

88. Technical Challenges
People use multiple e-mails/names
identifying the identity behind a voice can be difficult
Gender is difficult to parse
requires community review
Headers: Standardized
Bodies: Not Standardized
Email dates
varies in format
05

89. 06
What’s Next?
Scores
activity | influence | relation
Lists
your lists | google groups
Community
understand behavior patterns across communities

90. 06
Activity Score
Quantity of initiated messages
Quantity of responses
Time taken to respond

91. 06
Influence Score
Initiated conversations
Ratio of initial poster vs others in the thread
Dialogue with new people

92. 06
Relation Score
Male > Male | Female > Female
Male > Female | Female > Male

93. 06
Google Groups
can’t export data from google groups.
can only retrieve messages one-by-one.

94. 06
Join us!
more lists +
more questions +
more visualizations +
more analysis +
more awareness +
more self-reflection +
more focused initiatives =
more diversity + better software

95. Tactics of Inclusion
The party bag

96. GNOME

97. Internship for GNOME project
10 OSS project involved
Success

98. Address women directly.
Accept non-students and non-coders.
Connect women with mentors.
Require a contribution
No pressure for really ambitious projects.
Approach

99. Etsy

100. GNOME
attracted 500% more female engineers
Success

101. GNOME
Invest
trained junior women for hiring
Partner
alliances with other organizations
Make a Public Stand
success breeds success
Approach

102. Recommendation
Address Gender
Make gender an explicit part of any
intervention. Increasing gender increases
representation of other groups as well.

103. Personal Recommendation
Consciously 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.

104. Appendix

113. random images
maybe for later

114. technical challenges
People use multiple e-mails/names
identifying the identity behind a voice can be difficult
Gender is difficult to parse
requires community review
Headers: Standardized
Bodies: Not Standardized
Email dates
varies in format

115. our
methodology

116. our
methodology

119. our

121. breaking. mailing lists can be