EU Funds New FLOSS Survey on Skills, Employment

rishab writes "The EU-funded FLOSSPOLS project is carrying out a survey of developers worldwide. This is a follow-up to the original FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) survey in 2002, which was one of the first and most comprehensive surveys of developers - who they are, how they work and why they do it. The new survey aims to provide an update, include new developers, and answer some of the questions that were raised by the first one. In particular, how do developer communities help in learning skills and generating employment, and why is the level of participation by women so low?"

Comments

For some odd reason..

[SocialEngineer]

For some odd reason I read "FLOSSPOLS" as "FLOSS PLS". Subliminal messages perhaps?

Re:For some odd reason..

[Ohreally_factor]

I wonder how they will pick the five dentists that will participate in the survey. Are they going to get the same guys from the trident survey?

Re:Women

[chris09876]

Aptitude isn't the right word. There are plenty of smart women out there. I think part of the problem is the isolation that comes with sitting infront of a computer when you're developing. On average, I'd say women are more social than men. ...they're less likely to want to spend hours alone sitting infront of a computer. They'd rather be working on teams where there's lots of social interaction.

Not for them is it?

[Xarius]

why is the level of participation by women so low?

Why is the level of participation of men in, say, nursery school(kindergarten for the Americans), so low?

Men are good at certain things, Women are good at certain things. Regardless of "Equal Oppurtunities" etc. Men and Women are fundamentally different, see that's why there are different words for them. :P

Re:Not for them is it?

[JesusCigarettes]

Men are good at certain things, Women are good at certain things. Regardless of "Equal Oppurtunities" etc. Men and Women are fundamentally different, see that's why there are different words for them. :P

Come now. Let's not get caught up in "Well, this is just the way things are, and there's no reason to change" nonsense. According to your argument, the lack of women doctors and CEOs in the 1950s was because men and women are 'inherently different', right? Except that there actually was systematic oppression of women in place to prevent them from succeeding in high-paying professions.

It may be true that, in general, men are more likely than women to write software. That doesn't mean that the way things are *now* is a perfect representation of how likely women are compared to men. When you grow up believing that only nerdy, quirky women are involved in math and science (as they are often portrayed in movies, etc.) and you want to fit in, you'll avoid those fields even if you really *would* be good at math or science. Likewise, as a male growing up seeing stereotypes of male hairdressers as gay, it's easy to write off being a hairdresser to avoid being typecast as gay.

Are men and women different? Sure. Men have penises and testicles, and women have vaginas. They're *generally* hormonally different, and *generally* have tendencies toward certain things. That doesn't mean it's useless to examine what factors cause those tendencies, or that it's a good thing that we have self-reinforcing gender stereotypes. Examine behavior rationally - fuck this homebrew "common sense" unscientific bullshit.

Re:Not for them is it?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

The users of the OSTG sites are 97% male. Slashdot demographics are probably very similar.

With such an overwhelmingly male audience, you're not going to get a serious discussion on gender equity here unfortunately.

It's a bit of an echo chamber in here.

Re:Not for them is it?

[Monkelectric]

Are men and women different? Sure. Men have penises and testicles, and women have vaginas. They're *generally* hormonally different, and *generally* have tendencies toward certain things. That doesn't mean it's useless to examine what factors cause those tendencies, or that it's a good thing that we have self-reinforcing gender stereotypes. Examine behavior rationally - fuck this homebrew "common sense" unscientific bullshit.

And this is where you shoot yourself in the foot. Those same hormones that cause sex differentiation cause structural differences in the brain as well. Now im not saying women cant be programmers -- ive met some damn good ones -- but they are less predisposed to technical work -- and pretending something else is true because you want it to be is intellectually dishonest.

Re:Not for them is it?

[Xarius]

"According to my logic?"

I said no such thing. We pretty much have a society, now, where women and men *cannot* be discriminated against when going for jobs and whatnot.

Women simply aren't attracted to computer jobs, for whatever reasons I don't care. Why do we need to attract women to these jobs? To balance some fictional scale until women and men have equal 50% representation in every imaginable job?

If a woman seriously wants a job in computing, then there is no reason whatsoever that she cannot get one.

Stereotypes are almost always based on fact, it's where they come from. From what I can tell, most male hairdressers come across as 'camp', not necessarily gay. Most of them simply are.

Side note:
As for "homebrew common sense", what other type do you recommend? "Government issued common sense" or perhaps "Privately Leased common sense".

Re:Not for them is it?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

and pretending something else is true because you want it to be is intellectually dishonest.

And at the same time, you must also look at the social factors behind why women and men do different things. It's not all hormones.

When toy company creates a Barbie doll with unrealistic boobs that says "I hate math", it does have some influence on how young children perceive gender.

I know you don't think it's all hormones, but I thought I would just clear this up :)

Re:Not for them is it?

[Jemm]

"why is the level of participation by women so low?"

The most obvious reason why women may be discouraged from writing software is the attitude they face from a predominantly male group.

Have you ever wandered into one of those D&D gaming stores just to see what the fuss is all about. In general, these places make you feel about as welcome as George Bush in Canada. Well that is basically the reception women get from any technical gathering.

Seriously, who wouldn't walk away from that.

Re:Not for them is it?

[ScrappyTheObscure]

Being a woman and a programmer I have paid a fair amount of attention to the question of why I'm so rare in the field.

I really believe that the US's answers to this question are all youth-culture socially ingrained. The educational system doesn't have any way of providing anything like the roll models or mentoring or enough ways of reaching any really smart kid with aptitude who is socialized out of much of anything.

That's a gender-neutral way of saying US youth culture would have to change in order to alter this here. Enough other limiting factors have been removed, I think that's the last one and the biggest.

I have Indian coworkers who tell me that when they went to university, 1/3 of the slots in the science programs were reserved for women, 2/3 for men. The women, in their experience, may not look like they're going to be dominant, but are usually contenders for the very best grades.

I take that as (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that a much larger # of women could participate in computing and succeed if only they were not receiving some sort of short circuit early that kills interest.

Anyhow, ok, I'll grant women are different from men, but that doesn't mean the industry doesn't need to find a way to draw them in. We're just as smart as men and different is GOOD.

Or when was the last time you worked in a seriously multicultural office? Different world views and thought patterns make for constructive and healthy workplaces.

Re:Not for them is it?

[deacent]

As a woman who codes and went to an engineering university, I can testify that to that there are social factors that do dissuade girls and young women from going into technical fields. For one thing, there are few scientifically-inclined female role models. I don't know about you, but when I think of a female scientist stereotype, I have this vision of a cold, austere looking woman, which doesn't even remotely describe me or any of my female peers.

While growing up, I had adults and peers alike (not all of them, of course) treat me as if I'm some sort of freak for showing an interest in computers. Others would treat me like I was some sort of idiot who was incapable of doing the assigned work myself. When you're trying to fit in, it's easier to find a new interest than to endure those attitudes. It took several tries with my guidance councelor to get her to put together my records to submit to the college I went to because she kept questioning if I really wanted to do this. Not exactly a morale booster.

When I got to college, the male to female ratio was 6 : 1. Not only was there the minority of guys who hit on every girl they came into contact with (a few strayed over into sexual harassment), but there were very few girls who could sympathize with you.

If you are assertive, you're labeled a bitch. When you go for jobs, there are people who think, "Well, she's going to want to start a family soon, so I'd better not go with her; she's going to be undependable", without having any evidence of her dependability.

No, can't see why any young woman would have a problem going into a science field with those conditions. Any attempt to make science seem "girl-friendly" is doomed as long as the situtations that I mention are common enough. It's a cheap marketing ploy at best.

Having said all of that, I am a strong believer of matching the person to the position. I don't care if your advantage comes from your natural talent, physical build, education, experience, personality, etc. but, it had better be an honest match. You lose a lot when you confuse your assumptions with reality.

Re:Not for them is it?

[AmericanInKiev]

How about turning the question.

Generally, if you're a keyboard monkey - no one cares much about how you look.

A nice appearance on the other hand often means a person can earn more money for less work.

Those "cushy" jobs are generally not worrying about pointer math and proper object destruction.

So "nice looking people" migh be tempted away from computer jobs.

Now consider this:

As long as women WANT to "marry UP" and can get away with it (and who wouldn't) they will always find themselves in relationships which work better if the male is the workaholic.

Consequently Women can trade on their looks - while men more often must trade on their bread-winning.

The picture would change if women were equally predisposed to marry down.

don't hold your breath.

AIK

Re:Not for them is it?

[Jane Hackworth]

Now im not saying women cant be programmers -- ive met some damn good ones -- but they are less predisposed to technical work -- What does "predisposed" mean? Before technology, there was no "technological work." Are you saying there was some evolutionary pressure, during the few thousand years that humans have had culture, for males to develop more technological ability than females? If not, where would this predisposition come from? I also want to point out that "technological work" is a relative term. For example, when typewriters first came out, they were "new technology" and most typists were male. But when typewriters became standard secretarial equipment, typing was "women's work."

Re:Not for them is it?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

The Barbie is just one example.

You cannot ignore the social factors behind a child's mental development. I'm certain that you played with toys when you were a kid, and that those toys have had been influential in your development as a person.

Re:Not for them is it?

[GrouchoMarx]

That isn't likely to happen for quite a while. Gender discrimination is complex, different discriminations interact with each other, things such as "peer-backed" discrimination tend to be ignored and there are plenty of advocates of all sorts of discrimination...

True, it's not easy. And many may find it hard to cope with this, but it's not a problem that can be handled on an institutional level. You have to first address the problem yourself, within yourself. When YOU are judging a person not on the basis of their gender (or color of their skin, or sexual preference, or whatever) but on the quality of their character and their demonstrated abilities, then you start demanding the same from those around you. If that means calling someone on it who doesn't want to be called on it, that's their problem. Eventually some will rise to your level, and become allies.

No, we won't end up with a 50/50 split in the end, probably on anything. But if everyone has taken the strength to purge themselves of of unfair bias (and maintains only fair bias, such as "if you can't do the work, I won't hire you", which is perfectly legitimate), then we'll all be healthier for it and the ratio will be wherever it "belongs".

The solution to problems in society is honorable people. Honorable people are made honorable by their own actions, not by institutions.

Re:Not for them is it?

[deacent]

I'm shocked every time I hear this crap. Role model? Who the fuck needs a role model? I can't do homework because I don't have a role model?

Of course you don't need to have a role model to do homework. Maybe role model was a bad choice of words. The point is, girls are often given the impression that if they go into science, they'll end up as humorless, ugly, old maids.

Through college I was always harassed by idiots who couldn't do their work. The guys pretended like we were friends, the girls flirted. Were you capable of doing the work by yourself?

Yes, I was and I still am. I don't like to take help from anyone. Probably a personality flaw. But I really hate being patronized. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when they offer help, but sometimes, it's very obvious that they think you just can't do it. I don't know. Maybe it's just a sad attempt at a pick up.

Worst anecdote I can think of happened to my sister. She had a high school physics teacher who used to routinely tell the girls that he didn't expect them to be able to do the work.

I've literally had situations where I put forth an idea, it's dismissed without discussion, and a guy involved in the discussion within a minute puts forth the exact same idea, sometimes using the exact same words, and he gets the credit. It sucks, but that's life.

Most women who call themselves assertive are bitches. Most men who call themselves assertive are assholes. I've met plenty of assertive men and women who were fine, but as soon as some one calls them self assertive they're probably making excuses.

I tend to regard myself as passive most of the time, yet I've been called a bitch just for voicing an opinion in turn in an open forum.

Possibly, but I doubt you read their minds or they told you this.

No, but I've overheard conversations that weren't meant for my ears. It happens.

Married men tend to make more than single men and are hired more quickly, wheres the public outcry from single men? I'd think slashdot would be a good place for it to start.

I would guess that married men also tend to be older and more likely to have more work experience. I have no statistics so I don't know if that is a reasonable explanation or if you were comparing men of similar ages.

You aren't terribly special, if you could become a coder other woman could to. Given enough time, if there are a significant number of women who struggle through and become coders things will get easier. If there aren't many women who struggle to become coders, I'd say there's some sort of predisposition involved.

While I don't regard myself as better, I am apparently unusual or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm where I am because I've never done well at fitting in and I'm too stubborn to walk away from something I enjoy so much. I wasn't looking for sympathy. I was simply pointing out that a career in science has some real disincentives to women. Until those factors become much less significant, it's impossible to draw any rational conclusions about whether there is a genetic component to it.

FLOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

For the Love O god Someone Shower! Then you'll get the women.

Re:Women

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the aptitude to work long hours for nothing so that corporations can get their software for free? Probably not, women aren't that stupid.

Hmmm

[Neil Blender]

Do other countries think it's funny to put [United States] in alphabetical order in a country drop down list instead of index 1 where it belongs no matter what?

Re:Hmmm

[rokzy]

yes we think it's hilarious. we often screen videos of dumb Americans bouncing on the down arrow key at the weekly meetings of the "No USAians" club.

so far none of them have realised you can press the 'U' key.

the funniest ones are where they get all the way to countries beginning with the letter 'H', stopping to read and think about each one, before finally realising it's alphabetical and they can just scroll until countries beginning with 'U' appear.

when you guys finally figure out our plot, we'll start putting the USA in random places.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only assume it's done because.

1: Americans don't know that other countries exist.
2: The Ameican government doesn't want Americans to know that other countries exist.
3: Americans don't know the alphabet.
4: Americans can't spell.
5: Americans can't read.
6: Anyone that can't read, spell, doesn't know the alphabet or any geography might as well be an American.

Re:Hmmm

[tlhIngan]

Yes, why can't they list them by numeric country code as used for telephone calls, where the USA is 1? In fact we should just rename all countries to numbers instead, for example Nigeria would be 234 (not 419, sadly).

Ah, but then Canada would come first (yay!), since its country code *also* happens to be 1 (the only differentiator is area code...). And since logically most lists which have the same value in a list get sub-sorted alphabetically.

45 questions. ... eek!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Well, I started to take the survey... I was at question 11 when I realized that there are 45 questions to answer ... holy shit. Not sure I have time to answer all of these ...

Re:Women

[basilpronoun]

The proportion of men to women on the team which writes the highly reliable software for the space shuttle is roughly 50/50. http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.ht ml
Results count for more than studies.

Seven Years

[bstadil]

Let's see if the EU can beat the Americans and report back before 2012.

my first reaction

[ChipMonk]

Tell them to take a flying leap off a cliff. The EU is moving to destroy FLOSS with their innovation-stifling software patents. The only thing I'm willing to tell them about my use of FLOSS is, "You can't pirate what's given away for free."

The Lack of Women

[Jameth]

The lack of women in the computer programming field really is one of those oddities. The 2002 survey says 1.1% of FLOSS developers are female. That's less than the portion of women in construction. The construction field definitely has discrimination against women and extremely commonly has a hostile work environment.

By contrast, there's no clear reason why women shouldn't be in CS. The most likely possibility is still that it's a cultural norm, but that doesn't exactly explain why more women would be involved in construction than in CS. It might be a hostile climate, but I would be surprised if the male coders are more aggressive and sexually biased than the average guys on a construction crew. It's really quite a strange situation.

- http://www.theallineed.com/women/05031804.htm
"Currently, women workers make up nearly 10 percent of the construction industry or more than 900,000 nationally"

So long as we don't try to even things out

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I'm completely against gender discrimination.

I am also completely against changinf science or engineering to give it more "girl appeal". Doing so will stop science/engineering being what it is.The worst possible scenario is some sort of state intervention that applies quotas (eg. 40% of your proggrammers gotta be female to get a tax cut).

Analogy: 90%+ of cosmetics are bought by females for their own use.. Imagine if the state said that they had to sell at least 40% of their cosmetics to men. It would destroy the cosmetic industry.

Open Source has always been about a level playing field - let's keep it that way.

Re:Women

[Col. Bloodnok]

Plus, is the fact that there aren't many female OSS developers, or female developers in general, really anything like a problem?

I mean, I don't stay awake at night worrying why men aren't better represented in advertising, nursing, admin, HR, child care, midwifery, marketing and all the other careers which are (mainly) dominated by women.

Also consider the following: A women applies for a programming job and a man applies for a pre-school child care job. Which application is treated with the most prejudice and suspicion? And Why?

Why is this an issue??

[psykocrime]

I don't see any studies coming out asking "Why is the percentage of women so low amongst asphalt pouring crews" or anything like that. I also don't see any studies asking whey more men aren't going into nursing.

Why do we seem to have this societal obsession with getting more women into computer science / engineering, etc? Maybe, just maybe, it's the case that most women just don't *want* to be computer scientists or engineers. I mean, do we have hoardes of women protesting that they tried to get into this field and were discriminated against on a sexual basis (hint: no)?

The opportunities are there for women who *do* want to do this kind of stuff. So tell me again why this "issue" keeps coming up time and time again??

Re:women are sick...

[Gzip Christ]

There are only so many times you can hear a guy ask, "Is your body released under GNU/GPL?"

Hey, we just want to know which girls are easy to fork.

Why Fewer Women

[matria]

As a grandmother, who's been pretty much on my own for learning how to program, and wasn't allowed to have a computer "to waste time and money on" until my husband decided that HE could use one, I can tell you immediately why there are fewer women in FOSS development.

Most FOSS projects start as an after-work (or school), spare-time project. Most women work, and even working women are expected to handle housework, shopping, and child care after work. Where is the spare time left for anything else?