Thank you @jeff-zucker 🙏 I hope to spend some time with DEIT, but in all my community work Solid is still a side-quest tbh. That's why in the poll I voted the first option.
I applaud the diversity initiative. I would like to mention - a discussion we had before - that imho inclusion starts with an easy way to glean insight into what's happening in the Solid ecosystem / community. The complex board structure and different chat channels are making that hard. Chat is good for, well.. chatting, but not to get informed about history. A broad range of Github repo's with markdowns, wiki's and issues is also unwieldy. The forum imho is ideal for async communication, long-running discussion and as an archive.
But the forum is underused, mostly used by some dedicated community members, and the occasional Inrupt employee dumping a link.
I'd like to propose breathing new life in the discussion on what would be a good community organization. As I see a possible structure (and how newcomers discover Solid):
project website --> community forum --> drilldown to subgroups + their chat channelsNote that this is from community perspective, not necessarily from the core team's perspective, though it would be beneficial to community engagement if they too interacted more on the forum.
Your refer to:
inclusive of women of all ages, races, religions, economic status, ethnicities, abilities, gender identity and sexual orientation or anatomy at birth.
I think more inclusive and correct would be to say:
inclusive of people of all ages, races, religions, economic status, ethnicities, abilities, gender identity and sexual orientation or anatomy at birth.
@Vinnl_gitlab In general, I would say you’re correct that many women use “woman” as their gender identity, but I think they are trying to be inclusive of trans women and people who are assigned female at birth but might have a different gender identity that isn’t necessarily “woman” but still in the female part of the spectrum
