women@ is publicly archived

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

Greetings, all,

I was contacted (offlist) by a women@ subscriber who request that her
post be removed from the women@ archive -- she hadn't realized that
search engines, such as google, might find posts.

So, I just wanted to make sure that everyone on this list is aware that
women@ is publicly archived at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women .  Currently there
isn't a way to remove a post from an Apache mail list archive.

I realize from past discussions on this list that public archival can be
disconcerting -- and I think it's possibly a key barrier for this list,
which has been extremely quiet. I'd like to get this discussion going
again -- but on list! Please don't email me your opinion off list.  :-)

Why don't you (or somebody you know) like public archival? Here's a
starting list:

   + google searches can find posts
   + posts can't be removed

What else?

Again, please don't email me your opinion off list.  I realize this is
something of a stretch: somebody who doesn't like public archival might
not respond publicly to a discussion about it, but let's give it a whirl
and see if we can talk this through a bit.

 -jean

Re: women@ is publicly archived

[Sharon <sh...@linuxchixla.org>]

> Why don't you (or somebody you know) like public archival? Here's a
> starting list:
> 
>    + google searches can find posts
>    + posts can't be removed
> 
> What else?


I have no problem with a public archive for this list ... In fact I
would prefer it as a public resource.  I would like to keep all possible
communication venues which might help increase the participation of
women in development as open and available as possible. 

/Sharon

Re: women@ is publicly archived

[Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net>]

+1 on making it non-public.

as long as it doesn't turn out like this --> http:// 
www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/hndmrsh2.htm ;-)
On 10/05/2006, at 2:01 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:

> Greetings, all,
>
> I was contacted (offlist) by a women@ subscriber who request that her
> post be removed from the women@ archive -- she hadn't realized that
> search engines, such as google, might find posts.
>
> So, I just wanted to make sure that everyone on this list is aware  
> that
> women@ is publicly archived at
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women .  Currently there
> isn't a way to remove a post from an Apache mail list archive.
>
> I realize from past discussions on this list that public archival  
> can be
> disconcerting -- and I think it's possibly a key barrier for this  
> list,
> which has been extremely quiet. I'd like to get this discussion going
> again -- but on list! Please don't email me your opinion off  
> list.  :-)
>
> Why don't you (or somebody you know) like public archival? Here's a
> starting list:
>
>    + google searches can find posts
>    + posts can't be removed
>
> What else?
>
> Again, please don't email me your opinion off list.  I realize this is
> something of a stretch: somebody who doesn't like public archival  
> might
> not respond publicly to a discussion about it, but let's give it a  
> whirl
> and see if we can talk this through a bit.
>
>  -jean

--
Ian Holsman   ++61-3-9877-0909
"in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the  
same place." - Lewis Caroll

Re: women@ is publicly archived

[Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.com>]

Susan Wu wrote:
>
>
> I, for one, would be likely to post more frequently and candidly if 
> the list were not publicly archived.  I think there are a lot of 
> sensitive and productive topics we could discuss if there were no 
> archiving.
>
>
Would private archiving be a palatable alternative to no archiving?

The benefits of some sort of archive is the ability to go back and 
figure out what people thought in the past.  It's more important with 
project development and user lists when you have clear technical 
answers.  It might be useful in a more limited context here.

I'm curious if the aversion is more about any kind of archive or the 
fact that it is public.

-- 
*Berin Loritsch*
Owner 	

*Work:* 571-215-7708
	*Email:* bloritsch@d-haven.com <ma...@d-haven.com>
*IM:* bloritsch@d-haven.org (MSN)
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/bloritsch
*
* * 		*D-Haven* <http://d-haven.org>
20044 Great Falls Forest Dr.
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=20044+Great+Falls+Forest+Dr.%2CGreat+Falls%2CVA+22066%2CUSA&hl=en> 
Great Falls, VA 22066
USA

See who we know in common <http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/5678360/> 	Want 
a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/5678360/>

Re: women@ is publicly archived

[Susan Wu <su...@apache.org>]

I, for one, would be likely to post more frequently and candidly if the 
list were not publicly archived.  I think there are a lot of sensitive and 
productive topics we could discuss if there were no archiving.

Re: women@ is publicly archived

[Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>]

There are two issues in my mind:

1: Public archives.  I would be -1 to making women@ archives private: 
that's just not how the ASF operates.  Much of the value of how the ASF 
operates (to me, at least) is it's openness.  Openness - both in 
allowing subscriptions *and* in allowing public reading of past archives 
- helps build community.

Although I can imagine the discomfort that some people may have when 
posting to a public list, unfortunately I don't think that is a good 
enough reason to make the list private.  The existing community (and the 
community of read-only lurkers) needs to come first, before the needs of 
those who may be discomforted in public.

"But wait - ASF has plenty of private archives!" I hear some cry.  Yes, 
for very specific legal and organizational reasons.  Internal 
organizational management, legal discussions, contract issues, and 
security issues are all discussed on closed lists; this is only prudent 
given that we are a legal corporation with legal responsibilities.

2: Display of email addresses.  Most people have learned that you're 
getting spam no matter what, but some really freak out when their email 
address is displayed.  I'd reaaaaaly like to see our mail archives 
obfuscate email addresses.  That, however, is a separate question for 
infra@ and any mod_mbox gurus who want to volunteer.


My only suggestion is education and politeness in moderating here.  Let 
people know that this list is a nice place that doesn't tolerate bad 
behavior, and also provides a supportive place to discuss.  Also, if 
existing list members want to volunteer to re-post paraphrased questions 
from privacy-minded would-be posters, that is an idea to suggest.


- Shane

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Why don't you (or somebody you know) like public archival? Here's a
> starting list:
> 
>    + google searches can find posts
>    + posts can't be removed
> 
> What else?

Re: women@ is publicly archived

[Noirin Plunkett <no...@apache.org>]

By way of a very brief introduction - I'm a woman who was already beginning to
contribute to the httpd-docs project when women@ came into being, and I'm now a
committer. 

Whether this list should be publically archived or not depends, from my point
of view, on the aim of the list. If this is a list for already-involved Apache
folk to discuss ways that they can help encourage new contributors, then by all
means, publically archive it. However, if this is a list aiming to help people
who aren't already part of the Apache community become part of that community,
I think public archival is always going to be a barrier.

I think women@ should be a list aiming to help people who aren't already "in"
get involved, and thus, it should be unarchived. Not archived in a way that's
available only to subscribers (what I call "private archives"), and certainly
not publically archived. I'm not advocating self-destructing emails or anything
- anyone who receives an email can do with it as they wish, within the bounds
of copyright law (which means, for example, that saving it to their own,
personal archive is A-OK, reposting it somewhere else, like a public archive,
requires the author's permission).

I understand the objection to private archives - and how it would also apply to
no archives - on the grounds that "that's not the ASF way". With all due
respect, if the ASF way is working, then there's no need for women@. It doesn't
look to me like the ASF way is working though. Certainly, I've only seen one
corner of the ASF (httpd), but it is (to the best of my knowledge) the biggest,
and oldest, corner - and it's certainly the one most of the people I know would
think of, if someone mentioned "Apache". I understand that in some of the newer
projects things may work slightly differently - and if that way is working
better, good on ya! 

As far as I (someone who wasn't part of the original formation of the women@
project) can see, this list has really been relatively dead so far - the
closest I've seen to a practical venture was the Grace Hopper proposal, which
was lively for a few days, and then seems to have died. Ergo, changing the list
to an unarchived one can do only good - it's hard to have less than no activity
:-)

Anything that helps encourage and engage women will also be of benefit to other
interested parties who might like to be involved with the ASF, but either don't
know how, or are put off by the current ways. The biggest barrier I found to
contributing to the httpd project was having to continually remind people of my
work. Call it what you will, blame it on what you like, but lower confidence in
ones technical ability is something that's often pronounced in women, and it's
a part of "the Apache way" that seems inherently although unintentionally
biased against women.

The barrier to entry, at least for the project I know, is unnecessarily high. A
meritocracy should reward merit - valuable contributions. Unfortunately, at
present, it's a merit-and-confidence-ocracy - valuable contributions just won't
be seen, if people don't have the confidence to post them in the first place,
and continually plug themselves thereafter. I think women@ could be useful in
getting the meritocracy back on track. There's no real way of excising the need
for confidence - at the end of the day, a contribution has to be sent
*somewhere* for it even to be seen - but it's definitely a bar that can be
lowered, without lowering the standards of merit required.

For example, a nonarchived list where someone could post along the lines of
"Hey, if there's anyone from X Project who could look at the patch I submitted,
I'd be really grateful" would be considerably more useful than having to go
back to a public development list every few weeks and remind people that yes,
you submitted a patch, and would they mind giving you some kind of feedback
either way please. This is something that repeatedly had me on the verge of
giving up on the ASF entirely - only the fact that I *had* a mentor who was
already part of the Apache community kept me poking people - and I'm a
committer now, so clearly, my contributions were something of value. I can see
the ASF losing an awful lot of potential committers over this though.

A mentoring system, ala-Debian women, is something I think the ASF could hugely
benefit from. The Google Summer of Code projects, although restricted to
students, have been fantastically successful for httpd at least - but you have
the same bias against those who aren't going to jump up and shout "oh, me, me,
me!", and an additional bias against anyone whose college breaks don't line up
with those in the US (eg, most of the southern hemisphere, and at least my
university in Germany).

So finally, my practical suggestions:

Discontinue archival of women@, and make it clear that this is a non-archived
list.

Offer women@ as a forum for anyone interested in contributing to the ASF - and
solicit queries. Make it clear that "can you look at my patch" or "I'm trying
to fix X but I'm not sure quite how this internal bit works" questions are
on-topic, and try to find at least one or two people in each project who are
willing to help with these things, off-list if necessary.

Ideally, have some kind of webpage making clear that women@ exists, and what
it's for. Add to this, as time and queries dictate, answers to the common
problems - what style should my code be in, where can I ask about the internals
of X Project, how long should I wait if I haven't gotten any feedback on my
patch and what should I do then? Some projects already make bits of this
information available, but the quality and availability varies widely across
the ASF - I know work is required to gather it all in one place, but I don't
think it's working in vain.

And of course, continue discussion of what people who are already members of
the Apache community can do to engage with people who are interested but
shy/afraid/unsure.

If you have questions for me on any of this, I'd prefer to answer them in
private. I'm not happy or comfortable with this being a publically archived
list, and I'm really only posting this to the list so that silence is not
construed as agreement with the status quo. 

Noirin