Announcing my resignation from the ZOMG

[artkor]

With her irresponsible behavior on Twitter, she only emphasizes that Ian is right.

[holmesworcester]

I was trying to think about where to start here, and I think it’s worth listing a few different things we can all agree on as failures, to establish some common ground.

1. ZOMG has lost a valuable participant because she came to believe that the current environment wouldn’t let her pursue the goals that motivated her to join.
2. The unexpected intensity of pushback drove away an advocate for goals we all pretty much share, indicating a problem with our receptivity to advocates for these goals.
3. An applicant that is making exactly the kind of thing ZOMG basically exists to fund (Aditya at Zecwallet) is either turning down or very wary of receiving funding from ZOMG.
4. The gender balance on the committee was already out of step with best practices, and now there is no gender balance on the committee.

There are probably other things I’m missing, but I’ve tried to just make a list of things we can all point to and recognize would ideally be happening and aren’t:

1. Sarah ideally would still be with us.
2. Staunch advocates for access, privacy/security standards, and procedural transparency (to paraphrase Sarah’s goals) would ideally feel welcome, even (or especially) if they are sticklers.
3. Aditya would be funded to work on Zecwallet and expand his team, and whatever strings came attached to that funding would be welcome, as a seal-of-approval for example, and not a burdensome hassle, and the sincerity and achievableness of this intention would be clear to him and all other applicants (because it is both sincere and achievable.)
4. We wouldn’t have a panel that failed to be diverse on almost every important axis.

I think in all of these cases there’s a widely-shared intent about what we want to accomplish together, but it’s breaking down in practice.

Soo… let’s figure out why.

I think the key to this is emotions, and that while we’re having this conversations in a written online medium where the words are clear, the emotions that drive our decisions are completely opaque to each other or even ourselves, and that there are always unseen factors acting on our emotions. (This is like, the epitaph to 2020, or the “lasciate ogne speranza” written on the gate to the Internet.)

As far as my bringing up sexism goes, yes, Sarah chose to focus not on sexism but on what she sees as the clear strategic problem for Zcash. But when there are goals we all share, and a list of failures putting those goals into practice like the one above, including a clear gender imbalance that itself came from a broader set of factors, I think it would be really silly to not name sexism as a candidate for one of the invisible influences on our emotional states that might be derailing us from achieving our goals. So let’s name it. This doesn’t mean we have to exile anyone. It just means talking about it and a shared willingness to talk about it.

Of all the things in this list we can do to address this, the gender balance on the committee seems like the most obvious starting point, and something we’ll regret not fixing the next time this comes up, which it will. I’m flexible about how we do it but also certain it should be settled soon. It doesn’t have to involve guilt, or dramatic sacrifice, or unfairness. I’m actually happy to leave if anyone else objects to the “draw straws” approach—out of pragmatism and a clear sense of what needs to happen, not guilt—and I promise I’ll stay involved either way in the course of my work on Zbay. I considered this after the election; it’s not just a reactive thing. It doesn’t have to happen immediately either, and probably wouldn’t since an election would take some time. But if there are other ideas to open up space for gender balance soon while keeping control in the hands of voters on the CAP we can pursue those ideas too.

I know we don’t want to lose yet another ZOMG member that the community chose. But one way to look at this is that the lack of diversity on the committee will itself become (or has already become) a barrier to attracting the best candidates. I’m a great data point, as someone chosen by the CAP who would not have run for a non-diverse panel.

The other thing that seems fixable, if Aditya/Zecwallet is willing, is to find some mutual understanding there. I think I understand Zecwallet’s concerns about ZOMG funding, but I need to understand them better, and I suspect Aditya’s model of our concerns might be closer to his worst fears about us than to our actual concerns, if that makes sense. Also, I think whatever happens this experience will focus ZOMG’s attention intensely on the importance of being understood by grantees—who are understandably in a stressful and vulnerable position waiting for our decision. I take responsibility for a lapse in attention to this on my part, partly because I didn’t realize that what we were communicating could be interpreted as bad news. Feeling intensely in this moment how much of a slog it can be to put these complex ideas in writing, with no sense of how it’s being received and no emotional read on anyone (yikes) I’m inclined to bring voice communication into the process, though maybe that’s a bad idea and I need to think about it more.

To retain perspective, I think we should remember that building a decentralized, private currency, building the institutions around it, and building an effective grant-making entity from a democratic process and part-time labor are all very hard things to do, so we should forgive these stumbles.

We should also remember that all organizations have similar problems, but they try to best to hide them and often succeed to a degree.

We’re letting them be public to decentralize power and that’s hard, but also good.

[dontbeevil]

Diversity doesn’t happen automatically, it requires effort & time. Diversity is very important for building global products, because it brings various ideas & unique perspectives.

And I’m not sure why we are discussing diversity or sexism here.

[dontbeevil]

@sarahjamielewis

but it is clear that while I remain on the committee any such movement would be misattributed solely to me, and not the collective - and as such my presence is likely to hinder any progress that might be possible.

Did anyone actually blame Sarah for Zecwallet funding issue? Is something happening offline?

Who is attributing that? Who made that explicit on forums?

[dontbeevil]

@holmesworcester

But one way to look at this is that the lack of diversity on the committee will itself become (or has already become) a barrier to attracting the best candidates

whaaat? is that your belief or do u have any data?

[dontbeevil]

@holmesworcester

But if there are other ideas to open up space for gender balance soon

That shouldn’t be the goal — It should be Open, Welcoming & Supporting.

There are many other dimensions to diversity - region, location, expertise etc so it is virtually impossible to have that in set of 5 people.

[holmesworcester]

@dontbeevil

Diversity doesn’t happen automatically, it requires effort & time. And I’m not sure why we are discussing diversity or sexism.

Super quickly, I think we’re discussing it because sexism contributed to at least some of the failures above.

@dontbeevil

Did anyone actually blame Sarah for Zecwallet funding issue? Is something happening offline?

Yes, both offline and in the forums, people have stated their impression that the communication issue with Zecwallet had to do with Sarah being the messenger.

The history of all of this is online, mostly in the forums, but spans the period from Sarah’s Zecwallet vulnerability disclosure through the election and up to the present.

@dontbeevil

That shouldn’t be the goal — It should be Open, Welcoming & Supporting.

I think you’re right that the feeling of it is the most important thing, and I really don’t want this to feel like an argument or anything because I really appreciate your emphasis on what this actually is and not just how it appears. I really do!

But also numbers matter too!

@dontbeevil

@holmesworcester

But one way to look at this is that the lack of diversity on the committee will itself become (or has already become) a barrier to attracting the best candidates

whaaat? is that your belief or do u have any data?

Like I said, I’m a data point of one, since I would not have run for an all-male panel. We could ask other candidates too and collect data on it and perhaps that’d be a good test of whether I’m representative, or also you could just take my word for it that there are large and growing swaths of professional life in fields related to ZOMG’s work where this would give people pause.

Also, I hope you don’t see these responses as argumentative! Your participation in this conversation is really helpful and so I wanted to answer your questions quickly before going to sleep. I hope it’s helpful?

[dontbeevil]

@holmesworcester

We could ask other candidates too

My bad, I read that as “lack of diversity won’t attract good applicants” instead of “good candidates”. Because I felt grant applicants don’t care who is funding as long as they accomplish what they want to do.

Regd. your point: different individuals have different preferences for working. I personally don’t want to work with people who always agree with me or think like me. I’ve seen best decisions & output happen because of different & unique perspectives they bring to table. It is likely that gender diversity or other dimensions will bring new value to table.

I appreciate you answering my questions & making genuine effort to resolve the situation. I would really feel bad if you or anyone else steps down. In fact, I will argue to kill ZOMG if more folks step down, let ZF take over MG (I think that will make Zcash move closer towards its goal).

[dontbeevil]

@holmesworcester

Yes, both offline and in the forums, people have stated their impression that the communication issue with Zecwallet had to do with Sarah being the messenger.

I meant — did anyone blame her after her comment on Aditya’s proposal status.

[dontbeevil]

Last Token

[jmsjsph]

[Moderation Edit: removed quote box and subsequent explaining of quote box because post was in violation of the forums CoC regarding targeting users based on thier gender]

In my MGRC campaign, I suggested the use of anonymous message board, internally and externally. This provides an arena to “sound off” without assuming malintent or rehashing past transactions (pun intended).

Imagine if Adi had not received the message from Sarah, but rather received an anonymous message signed by ZOMG.

[jmsjsph]

Here’s an idea - simply consult OpenPrivacy when we request SJL’s input on a ZOMG grant. This way, we may get access to SJL, she need not trouble herself with our politics, and everyone gets more Zcash! Go, go, go!

[jmsjsph]

@artkor’s post was removed, as I predicted, because apparently it is okay to call an entire community sexist without any evidence, but it is not okay to talk about the sexes while quoting scientific research.

I flagged all the posts that claim that the Zcash Community is inherently sexist without offering any evidence. Please remove as it is highly detracting and offensive, and fails to create a harassment-free experience for everyone

[tokidoki]

Sad to see you step down from ZOMG, @sarahjamielewis

Good luck with the future! Hopefully you’ll still be active in the ecosystem.

As a mostly passive forum participant, sometimes I felt overwhelmed with the negativity of some people here. Can’t imagine how those who have a public position must have felt.

[holmesworcester]

@dontbeevil

I meant — did anyone blame her after her comment on Aditya’s proposal status.

I would say people have attributed the misunderstanding to the fact that Sarah was the messenger, yes. Online this was alluded to and I’ve heard it offline too.

[BostonZcash]

@zancas

It’s my opinion that being elected to a position on the ZOMG, and accepting that position, is an assumption of responsibility. Clearly, anyone can step down at any time, but in doing so they are abdicating responsibility.

I understand that ires are raised, and tempers piqued, nevertheless, I believe that abdication of ZOMG responsibility really constitutes a betrayal of My Trust (I can’t speak for the wider community, but I bet a few others would agree).

I’d just like to echo this sentiment here. It’s disappointing that this was seen as the best recourse, followed by implications of lax security and insinuations of sexism that are then amplified beyond the community without substantiation.

[ambimorph]

This issue has only just come to my attention and I obviously need to get caught up on context, but regardless:

I must disagree with the notion that we should assume unfavourable attitudes or reception of Sarah, given technical expertise, had to have been driven by sexism. That is a lazy leap. We all know people whose personalities clash with others. Sexism is not needed to explain this. Sexism is a serious accusation, and should not be made by the mere not being able to think of an explanation. The consequences of such a reaction can include creating a culture of fear, or a sense that we are obliged to agree extra with women despite our actual state of agreement. That is dangerous.

Second, as a voting member, I would strongly oppose any initiative to select ZOMG members based on experience with being the object of sexism. The reason is that I don’t know how to decouple that from selecting people who have made an identity of being the victim of sexism. This kind of person sees everything through the lens of his or her own trauma and will bring toxic bias.

Likewise, I am not in favour of voting in two more women because they are women. I value diverse representation, but only if that diversity is relevant to specific goals. For example, class diversity and citizenship diversity may be relevant to security needs.

Moreover, the security and cryptography community is mostly men, and to try to equalise representation of women would in fact disproportionately represent them. Why add another reason for women who have earned their place in this community to feel imposter syndrome? Let them know they are valued for what they bring to the table and not because we needed token women.

[zancas]

Wow, I wish I were as level headed, and thoughtful and as skilled a communicator as you! Or even close!

This is precisely why your departure from the ZOMG would be such a trauma to the community.

Please don’t go.

[ChileBob]

There’s tons of stuff to get done, lets get back to work? Dwelling on what might or might not have happened and exploring how we all feel about it is not very productive.

What’s the plan? DC was next on the list, temporary seat until confirmed (or not) by CAP vote? Something else?

[zebambam]

The forum software won’t let me repost a comment here, so I’m linking to it instead: Request for Input: Securing the Zcash Ecosystem - #14 by zebambam