[Bigbang-dev] Are gender diversity and draft productivity correlated? THE VERDICT

Mon Aug 31 12:22:33 CEST 2020

> On 29 Aug 2020, at 21:40, Sebastian Benthall <sbenthall at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, I've got a first pass of the results of this on httpbisa.
> 
> What I'm getting from the current crawl of the datatracker is 36,525 drafts.
> 
> I am surprised that there are some days that have thousands of drafts:
> 
> date          number of drafts
> 2015-10-14    3025
> 2013-03-02    3016
> 2020-01-21    1217
> 2018-12-20     644
> 2020-07-13     199
> 2020-03-09     146
> 2020-07-29     145
> 2018-04-19     130
> 2014-04-24      97
> 2015-04-30      94
> 
> I'll need to do some more validation of the scripts and results here, but I wanted to ask for the sanity check. Does it make any sense to say that httpbisa published 3025 drafts on 2015-10-14? Or is this most likely an error somewhere?

This seems like a bug somewhere – if the code is available, I’m happy to do a quick sanity check on how you’re using the datatracker library.

Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/documents/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/documents/> it seems that httpbis has 48 documents. Each of these will have gone through multiple versions as a draft, but even with ~20 draft per document (which is roughly typical), that’s not close to thousands. 

Searching https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i-d-announce/?q=httpbis <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i-d-announce/?q=httpbis> finds announcements for 721 internet drafts containing the string “httpbis”, which seems plausible.

Colin

> Another issue here is that the draft output preceeds the mailing list records (see attachment). Another is that there are very emails sent by women (or, so identifiable by our detection method) in httpbisa:
> 
> <image.png>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:26 PM Niels ten Oever <mail at nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
> Httpbis is the one you're looking for :)
> 
> DNSops is also a nice big one.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Niels
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 21:17, Sebastian Benthall <sbenthall at gmail.com <mailto:sbenthall at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hmmm.
> 
> Web mail archives of the http list at  https://ietf.org/mail-archive/text/http/ <https://ietf.org/mail-archive/text/http/> only go up to 2012.
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> It looks like there are several DNS working groups. Any one in particular you think would be worth looking at?
> 
> Genericizing the code so that it can loop through many groups and compute results is the next step towards confirmation. Probably worth looking at a couple other concrete and well-understood examples before doing the big analysis though.
> 
> - S
> 
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:52 PM Niels ten Oever <mail at nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail at nielstenoever.net>> wrote: 
> Very interesting. I'd say the number if drafts and authors in hrpc is too low to make a statement about this though. Could we do this for the HTTP and/or DNS WGs ?
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 19:30, Sebastian Benthall < sbenthall at gmail.com <mailto:sbenthall at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm revisiting the question of whether mailing list gender diversity and draft productivity of working groups are correlated.
> 
> Putting aside for now all the methodological complications, here is how I am operationalizing the question:
> I'm looking specifically at the HRPC working group, with this data:
> 
> Gender is being detected based on first name birth records. "unknown" is used for cases that cannot with the current data set be determined as either men or women.
> I'm measuring "diversity" on any day as: (women's activity + unknown's activity) / (men's activity). Because, you know, this is probably close to what most people probably mean by diversity. (Recall that non-Western names are more likely to be categorized as "unknown".)
> I'm using a 100 day rolling average on the activity counts.
> This is the matrix of Pearson correlations between each of these values:        
> 
> women	unknown	men	drafts	diversity
> women	1.000000	0.910922	0.804869	0.008890	0.160833
> unknown	0.910922	1.000000	0.808168	0.027502	0.245059
> men	0.804869	0.808168	1.000000	0.015406	-0.141915
> drafts	0.008890	0.027502	0.015406	1.000000	0.061884
> diversity	0.160833	0.245059	-0.141915	0.061884	1.000000
> 
> Things to note:
> The activity of each gender is correlated with the activity of other genders.
> Diversity is anticorrelated with the number of men. This is expected based on how it was defined, and a good sanity check.
> Draft output is MORE correlated with diversity than it is with any individual gender!
> This last point is quite nice. It resonates with the work of Scott Page on the value of diversity to collective intelligence, for example.
> 
> These numbers are a bit hard to interpret. How much should we trust them? These are the p-values associated with each correlation:
> women	unknown	men	drafts	diversity
> women	0	0	0	0.6925	0
> unknown	0	0	0	0.221	0
> men	0	0	0	0.493	0
> drafts	0.6925	0.221	0.493	0	0.0059
> diversity	0	0	0	0.0059	0
> 
> Generally, p-values below .01 are considered "statistically significant", i.e. publishable.
> This correlation between diversity and draft output makes the cut!!
> 
> So the verdict is: for HRPC, YES, gender diversity is correlated with draft output.
> 
> This result is robust to transformations of the activity scores into the log space, which is comforting.
> Further work is needed to see if this result is robust across other IETF working groups.
> 
> Nick, what would you say to including a result like this in the paper about IETF and gender?
> 
> Cheers,
> Seb
> 
>       
> 
> Bigbang-dev mailing list
> Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net <mailto:Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net>
> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev <https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev>
> <diversity-productivity-httpbisa.png>_______________________________________________
> Bigbang-dev mailing list
> Bigbang-dev at data-activism.net
> https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/bigbang-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/bigbang-dev/attachments/20200831/a660a9ca/attachment.html>