 And today, I'm going to talk about the time in my life. So for those who are making this, they're going to take the rest of the day and we're going to be able to connect some tasks with what I'm going to talk about. I'm just taking a kind of different perspective. I'm going to be meeting with some of those softwares for about six or seven years now. And currently, I'm working as a security engineer on the web browser. And during these years, we hear more and more about diversity and inclusion in both the tech industry and in terms of the softwares in the U.S. And so I'm going to be in the way of the debate, some of the policies, and the conversation, the way the conversation has framed about diversity and inclusion. Because I feel like we focus on some symptoms, which is really important, is great. But we may somehow have the root codes of everything. And basically, it's about power. It's about power. We can control the power and maybe a capacity that can be distributed among individuals, but that's not enough. We can't say, OK, to fix issues, for example, we go down with enough women. In the tech industry, we need to open more positions whereby we can fix up enough because it won't take into account the larger structures of power, which shape the individual power relationships in our society. So it can be social, institutional, at school, convenient family, any company, et cetera. So power is also something that we can save up as power relationships, power domination, and so on. So when I talk about sharing power, really what I mean is about having empowerment from an individual and a collective point of view. I'm talking about power relationships. So what does it mean to be on the better side of this relationship? First, it means that I'm legitimate to occupy space, that I feel legitimate, and that people consider I'm legitimate. Occupy space can be physical space. It can be the better. I'm here standing on the stage. I'm talking to people while listening to myself. I'm in a position of power right now. It means that my opinion is considered as more legitimate than the opinion of people who won't be in my position. It means also, very important, that I can make the decisions for myself, but also for others. And if it means also that people in general will have human-negative prejudices against me, and also, especially when I'm having some behavior that is unexpected or, okay, so what can we do? We can change the rules in our villages. The title of my job is sharing power in our communities. And even if we are living in a society where we have learned norms and way of behaving and so on, we are living here. We are creating some space, some community, some group, some collective, where we can actually decide how we want to organize ourselves and how we want to interact with each other. So we can try to dismantle our inequalities and the norms that we have learned, consciously or unconsciously. So first, we have to become more aware of how we interact with each other. So there is a very important phase of observing and listening. And then we can change how we debate, how we decide, how we collaborate and how we met things together. So these are my goals, three goals. The first one, I want to organize myself in a room to neutralize hierarchies as much as possible. Then I want to be able to decide, and I want the book to be, that we, inside the book, that we are able to decide together as much as possible. And I want this way of organizing to be empowering as much as possible. So these are four steps that I will dive into. The first one is observing and listening. The second one is to decide a new way of organizing ourselves. The third step will be to implement this design. And the fourth step will be to test it. And when we are testing it, actually we will cycle back into the first phase to observe and listen to how it is going on. So first step, observing and listening. We can start by asking ourselves some questions. What we want to observe and listen and how we interact, how we function. And also we want to analyze some power aspects. So we might want to start with this, who talks, who decides, and who is there. But on the opposite, we might also want to concentrate on who is silent, who listens, but doesn't talk too much, and who is absent. It can be physically or just absent, I'm not here, and people are talking about something and I don't feel that I'm working with conversation. So you can ask yourself who is paid, because it means that these people will have more time to come to be with other people who they just try not to live. Who is legitimate or perceived as legitimate? Who is considered to have some authority? Who is enthusiastic? But also who is put aside? And who is angry? It might be interesting to look at who is angry. Anger is a very appealing emotion and people who are angry, we tend to want to necessitate from them. But anger is a reaction to something and may be a good thing to bring this observing face to try to understand why they're upset or rejected at all. But I'm going to talk about the concept which is being marked. I'm taking this concept from the Transpareness Julia Serrano which is adapting this concept from linguistics to activist work. And she's saying that some people, we perceive some people as having some characteristics, some traits and some of them are unexpected or are standing out for ourselves. We have our each, every one of us has a different filter. So we won't mark people the same way depending on our diagram or profile or interests and so on. So what Julia Serrano is saying that people who are marked are generally viewed as having something that unmarked people do not have. That's something that therefore is subjected to remarks, questions, debates, praise or critique. The unmarked person escapes such critical analysis by virtue of the fact that they are not seen as having that something. So let's have an example. This is a picture taken from the movie called The World of Humanity. And basically what we can see is that the group of people of seven people, eight people, seven people, six of them are young Indian men and seven people in a young woman playing football. The very strong background of the gender, of the race, of the sports, of your interest in sports and so on, you might mark these people as, for example, the old Indian or you might mark any one character in this scene as the single woman playing football because you don't expect women to play football. So you are doing some remarks. But you could also mark some of the people who are not having shirts, for example. The thing is, in our society, we tend to mark people as unparalleled, single-out, unplayed by assumptions and theories that the unfortunate does not face. And in our society, these marks are roughly around, for example, gender, race, sexual orientation, mental physical abilities, but it could be also your profession, your type of personality, as well. So in this discussion, Mark, we will have some questions after this. Okay, just one question. Okay, so with these marks, people, if we will develop double-stardust, double-stardust takes many forms, universal assumption, for example, every, some people are doing this, and there will be hierarchies, stereotypes, and attribution. There are also some forms of invalidation. This is that people who tend to be different or who have a behavior or idea that we don't expect, we tend to say, we could say that they're mentally incompetent, or they're really sexualized, or we will tend to see them as immoral, safe, anomalous, fake, innocent, they are strong. So, but my point is, it is to say, when you notice some of double, some of these assumption, hierarchies, stereotypes, attributions, or some of these form of invalidations, just take one moment back, one step back, and analyze, take time to say, okay, is there something going on here, or is it really just race? Okay, I have two questions. The first one is about inclusion. We hear a lot about inclusion or inclusivity, and it's great. We need to ask ourselves some questions, though. The first thing is, who includes? When we talk about inclusion, usually we focus on a group, or an image that represents the majority of the dominant persons, who are willing to include other people who are used to be excluded, or an in-minority. So, if a dominant group tries to include some people, are they doing this, how are they doing this, according to which groups? Are they both decided by the dominant groups? If that is the case, then we have to ask ourselves, are we repeating some power presence? Are we repeating things that drove away the excluded people at the first time? Then we need to adapt. If we say, okay, we want more, we like to say diverse, or it doesn't mean anything, but basically more people don't have the same character as we have in our group, personally, do they need to adapt? For example, we say, okay, we want to show you to our group, but we want you to stay silent about, for example, your sexual orientation. This is not very fair. And also there is one interesting thing, is do we change how we make decisions? Because basically one good attribute of having power is being able to make decisions that will control the individuals. So, do we allow people who are excluded and that are now able to take part in making the decisions and framing how they want to be part of the community? Second comment I want to make is about membership and transparency. We hear a lot about this two way of organizations in the field of control software, and usually people tend to think that they are fair and they are efficient, but they might prevent you to repeat power patterns and inequalities if you don't explicitly undiscuss some of the values and some of the processes inside very difficult to oversee. In particular, you have to ask yourself some questions. Who has access to resources to contribute? Well, inside the geography, the people having power are supposed to be the power being able to contribute, but who has access to resources such as money, time, energy, self-confidence, et cetera. This is a question because if we think, okay, just because we are in a geography, everyone can contribute. This is not a good reality. If we don't put in place some measures to take into account the diversity and the differences among the population we want to attract, then we are missing some points here. As a, who really has the power and abilities to do? So we say that people who are doing other, who are the power and abilities to do, this is related to what I've just said. Then, who makes decisions according to which values? Because basically in the geography, we say the power is, the person deciding is the person who is doing it. But actually the person who is deciding is the person accepting the work at the storm, which is a group of people part of the community. And according to which values are they deciding that the solution is better or is acceptable inside the frame of the community? One example, for example, if you are in a software community and you have a lot of developers and you have a US designer coming and proposing some work to improve what's currently in place, maybe the community of developers is who can decide, we think, now, okay, US designer is not important, it's already works like that. We don't want to accept your contribution. Because I don't have the same values and maybe from the same sensitivity like US design. That is something that needs to be discussed and I'm not explicitly, what are the values? And so there is a risk of homogenization. When you contribute to something, you are a newcomer, you have more chance to have your work accepted if you are a mentor and if you interact with the people from the community. But there can be some bias. That is, we tend to mentor and accept the work of people who are more like us. And we have the bias of saying, okay, I want to spend more time on helping these people, this person, because I think she has more abilities and she has more potential than, for example, some other people who doesn't speak my language, in my language, she doesn't understand what's going on. It's documented to a person who is more efficient, more efficient for taking decisions and for moving forward. And there is this idea that debating to have everybody agreeing on a decision would take a lot of time and can never happen, actually. So there is this idea that doing will be faster. And then, but it doesn't question the fact that why do we need to be efficient and why do we need to go fast? And we have a relationship to time and speed that is a bit specific in our society. We need to go fast, we need to be efficient, but why? Even more in free software and open source communities because we are more driven by the market, for example. So we can take some time to make things maybe slower, but maybe more inclusive and more, and more fun. This doesn't mean that we don't need to be efficient in some context or that some decisions doesn't need to be made very quickly. So it's a balance to find. So this is our tool box for detecting common patterns. This is skills, double standards, form of validations, and organization mapping to see how people are interacting with each other and what are the hierarchies to set the community. Next step, designing. So here I'm following the example of permaculture. Permaculture is a way of designing dynamic and complex systems. It can be for the government, it can be for your farm, it can be for your neighborhood, it can be for your house. And basically it doesn't tell you how to implement sustainable and fair system that respect the nature, environment, and human beings. But it gives you some principles to design your system that will fit your resources and your own goals. And this is basically what I'm doing here. I've been talking about general principles to design your own way of organizing yourselves and your community. But it doesn't mean that you don't need conflict methods, however, we need to learn that conflict methods, a lot of them exist. And we need a self-protective way of thinking. So, first thing, maybe the most important one, everything changes. Yourself, as an individual, you are changing. Inside a community of people, the community is changing because there are newcomers, people are living. The task that you have to do as a community will change, your goals will change, and so on. So there is not a unique model in time and space. Also, a model, a way of organizing that will work for another group of people might not work for yours for your group of people, because there are two different entities. Design principle. This one I like, I like it, it's very personal, but pay attention to what and who is silent or absent. You really, we tend to focus on who we can hear, who is taking a lot of place, a lot of space and so on. But paying attention to this side is absolutely important. Expect and respect emotions. We are living in a Western society where there is a tradition to oppose reason and emotions, and often there is a hierarchy because we think that reason is fairer than emotions. But emotions are also a reaction to something that is happening, and emotions are not necessarily irrational. So we need to take care of them. And also, we are in the call in the way we express emotions, and we receive them. So just be open to all of you and we have emotions, especially, yeah, that one's a good one. Yeah, design principles. Rotate. One of my goals was to neutralize hierarchies as much as possible. This doesn't mean that there isn't specific roles inside your community. Some of these roles can imply more visibility of having some leadership role and so on. One way of keeping these roles that are important to move forward is to rotate and have different persons doing them all the time. There is one thing with that. We don't have all the same experience. We don't have all the same experience. And sometimes, for example, if you want to, you have a very important decision to make and you have this feeling where it's going to happen and you want fully to be efficient in there. You might want somebody who has experience and some wisdom and some skills in leading this meeting. This is okay. What you can do is to design a process to have other people who don't have this skills yet, who don't have this experience yet, to learn them. So maybe you will have less important meetings where you will engage people to take these leadership roles and gain some experience in there. And that can be part of the way you imagine the whole organization. And then when these people will have more experience, they can take this very important role during this very important meeting. And that's how, over time, you can rotate roles and naturalize hierarchies because it will just go flat. Finally, remember that the agile system doesn't exist, but you can get closer to something that is more, yeah. To do that, you have to run on that method. A lot of them already exist. These are some that I experimented myself. Making decisions with collective consensus. We tend to think that having the agreement of everybody is very difficult to get, but if you pray, but there are some methods to break this way of getting consensus in an interesting way, for example, it could be everybody agrees to make this decision if nobody has a strong objection against it. It's not the way to fight it. And if it's possible, actually. Then you can use sortation for some roles, for example. Rotational roles, I talked about, and games, which are interesting, especially role-playing games. So we can understand how each of us can think differently, for example. Some people with 10 to 20 things in a negative way and see all the drawbacks. Some people will only see the positive sides, but you have a role-playing game and exchange the two roles, then maybe we can start to understand more of each other. More general methods about communicating, learning to communicate by being generally inclusive, questioning stereotypes and insults of our part and the way to put our powerful accessibility. The third step in implementing, there is a sociologist called Robert Sennett who wrote a book called Together. And in this book, he studies cooperation and how, what makes good cooperation? And basically he says that cooperation is like a craft. And he needs good will and skills to be developed, but listening well, behaving tactfully, finding parts of agreement and managing disagreements, and avoiding frustration in difficult conversation. So these are four skills that are useful to get a good cooperation working inside a collective. I will add another layer, which is being a form of social realities and inequalities, to get knowledge in context on history and to have some empathy to be able to understand the point of view of another person from their own perspective. So basically what I'm saying is that sharing power is a sort of craft, a craft which needs good will, the energy skills, knowledge in power patterns, and knowledge of yourself, which is important to know with what is the filter which filter you are considering the world and if you get to take a lot of space depending on your personality or if you tend to get angry more often than others and so on. You also need to know when to think up and when to stay silent to let more space for other people. Sometimes it's difficult to find the balance. One trick can be to boss your voices of others when you want to take position and doesn't want to be, to take too much space. Learn what's different between what's anecdotal and systemic, the impact of your, of your impact on being the same and your reaction on being the same. And when you mess up and it's always happening and that's okay, just acknowledge, apologize, and stop the harmful behavior so that it touches you, something. The last step is testing it. One thing to remember, now that chapter is so we won't get it right the first time and that's fine. We just have to go back to the first step which is observing and listening what's happening and adapt and change what's not working. What I'm proposing is organizing ourselves. Each group of people can have the freedom and the creativity to organize their own way of functioning. And that's if we were creating a world made of multiple worlds. There isn't one hierarchy that we work, one way of functioning that we work with. And if we are looking at how most of our companies are working today, it's often according to one chain of free models. And so you should be thinking of the same patterns. Here I think I'm contributing to the front of our software and this kind of project has already had a political goal which is creating, sharing and monitoring the problems. And this is already an alternative project inside our capitalist world, defending the problems. And if we add this dimension of developing more social equality and of dismantling the power process, then we have a very good chance, a very good start at creating alternative political spaces, functioning in a different way, solving issues that maybe we think are unsolvable right now. And I think that during these days it's very important to have in mind that this is actually possible, that people are actually doing it. And we have ways and methods to do that. Thank you for your attention. I will be outside for answering your questions or for your contactualization. So I'll open those in the slide that will be on the bottom left side. I've put some resources both online and I'm both in English, Spanish and French if you want to build a further question. Yes. Yeah, I have a question that I think just said any classification is actually a negative thing, is this what you said? Any classification is a negative thing? I think at the very beginning you said you classify people and so on. And I have the impression that you said every classification is a negative thing for the group you're classifying. No, so I didn't do the term classification. I guess so I think you refer to having marks, marking people. Yeah, marking. Yeah, okay. So you can mark people in a negative or positive way and you can also not mark people. It's very, it's relative to your background. For example, for example, you are in a room and it's full of white men doing commercial software and there is one woman, this woman will be marked. But maybe not that by you, if you are used to doing women, but other people who are not used to that, notice that she's here and asking themselves a question, oh, it can be positive. Oh, yes, there is a woman, but you won't say, oh, yes, there are so many men, you know. So the difference in the way you represent them. It's not necessarily a negative thing. Why do you think a privileged person will be in this position as being privileged and start questioning the norms? That's a good question. That's a good question. I think there are several parts in my answer. The first one is you could appeal to the sense of justice, of fairness of these people. You could also appeal to the sense of empathy. Some people, there is this experience, but you are talking with people about a political topic or about privileges and so on and they will defend the point of view. And if you ask them a question or say, and what about, I don't know, your sister or your boyfriend or whatever, they will start to imagine themselves into a position of feel themselves at their concern. The issue with these privileges and these norms and so on is that we don't have to question them. And it's very difficult to get conscious about it and try to take it to it. And basically it's like taking the pills and metrics. It's discovering a whole new world and you are putting a position that is not very comfortable. So I would say some people, to put that something to question, it can take times. Usually it won't happen during the debate, during the conversation you're having with them. It might happen three months after, but yeah. I think we, it can be very hard, but I've seen people change personally in me and I know a lot of people who are advocating for some new ideas and they're doing it for a purpose because they know it's actually having a new impact. So yeah, for probably people to start questioning when they see that it's also hard for the way it sounds. Do you agree with that? Yeah? You mentioned Sarkisian. Yeah. What is that? What is it? So when that, in front of this shadow soft, in English it's when you have a much larger face. Do you think of the new people inside of you and you don't decide who will be the chosen one? It's just from the side? Sorry. Don't you agree? I agree. From the idea of rotating rules, very interesting. But I have trouble imagining how it worked. Can you maybe explain what experiences you had with it? So, for example, let's say a quick example. You're doing a media.