Thank you for taking the time to write a polite & thoughtful response.
This discussion reminds me of the phrase “res ipsa loquitur”. The thing speaks for itself.
The results speak for themselves here, whether it was the objective intent of the system builders &/or users, or the revelation of unconscious biases. However unpalatable the results, it is what it is. Though it may be shocking to speak so plainly, the direct causation of the lack of diversity is the thoughts held in the minds & beliefs held in the hearts of the system builders & voters… This time around.
As for the LA traffic jam analogy, it can seem that way as an individual user who derives detriment from the status quo, but when the system is viewed as a whole one can also see an entire industry of people whose livelihoods depend directly on the consequences of those traffic jams. There is an entire local industry built on LA freeway fender benders & therefore there are many who not only want them but require them.
Some groups do benefit from the status quo & will not want that to change, but would never have the courage to say so publicly. To even hint at such things would undermine their objectives. This is true in any group subject to governance.
The point is, there are always groups in power who directly benefit from maintaining the status quo, or it would not be the status quo. But this may not be readily apparent to those born into the groups who benefit from the status quo, who have known nothing else but existing as a beneficiary at the expense of others in the population.
Everyone needs to learn to step outside themselves & into the shoes of those they seek to empower, with meaningful empathy, or risk looking like “just another white savior” who has little chance of making connections along any axes of human experience but the ones with which they are already familiar.
Making people want a product once its available: Yes. I could bend your ear for hours on exactly how to make that happen & why that hasn’t happened in this case so far but that’s neither very pertinent to the current conversation nor my place to say these things without request.
Yes, it does require people have a stakeholdership, not a sense of, but an actual stakeholdership. Otherwise its nothing better than all the other promises from all the other groups & companies. When results turn out such as they have in the current voting circumstances, people who seek inclusion once again see more of the same industry status quo lack of diversity.
From the outside there does not appear to be any “walk the walk” regarding DEI issues. This creates unnecessary constraints & preconceived notions about the project before meaningful connections along any axes of human experience outside those represented by “the board” are made. It can even preclude those connections from being made. From the 10k foot view all homogenous boards look the same to someone on the outside. Why make things harder than they already are?
We all know the project faces significant sentiment problems. To pretend otherwise is doing a disservice to the main objectives. Entrenching some of those issues with another homogenous board does a disservice to the main objectives. If the project is to be successfully adopted by billions of people, it must do the opposite. But again, that’s outside our scope here. The bottom line on this issue is that you can be very good at math, very good at science but you also must be “very good at people” or meaningful adoption is at best at jeopardy.
The fact that this must be discussed at all speaks volumes about how much work needs to be done to give the project even the appearance of actual diversity. I’m not saying that to be mean or rude. I’m saying that because it’s true. I’m known for pulling no punches & will always extend the same courtesy here because there’s no benefit to corporate sugar coating language. I have no fence to straddle for the sake of my personal business interests, as others do, so I’m taking the liberty to speak freely.
I can tell you how to grow the CAP to be more diverse. I can tell you how to connect a critical mass of non English participants. But again that’s outside the scope of this thread…which I’m very glad to see being taken seriously with significant participation.
You can’t out math, out game or out code human nature. Despite being some of the most brilliant minds in the field, you are human. No human has ever been able to out math or out science human nature & they never will. It’s tilting at windmills. The only thing that can change lack of DEI is a legitimate change in perspectives & beliefs in the minds creating & using the solutions.
Or a diverse enough, large enough group of stakeholders, system creators & voters so that those who caused the current lack of diversity issues are a smaller percentage stakeholder of power & control than those who are the intended recipients of alleged empowerment.
If you don’t understand people, you can’t empower them. If a board is homogenous, it is at a great disadvantage to understanding those they need to reach & persuade, to at the very least achieve their stated business objectives, whether they truly take them to heart of not.
Otherwise the biases, conscious or not, will leak through to the results every time. It has for all of human history & I am skeptical that this time is different. The thing is the sum of its parts & that means everyone involved is charged with the personal responsibility to do better. We can split hairs all day about what constitutes “diversity” or how to quantify “meaningful”.
But at the end of the day the results speak for themselves.
PS: I don’t know how to do the cool quote thing on this platform. This reply is in response to Nathan’s preceding post.