You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com> on 2010/07/16 17:15:28 UTC
[DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> -1 (unbinding)
>
> because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
> relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote,
> so to speak
>
> in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
> between the options of:
>
> (a) closing women@ and
> (b) setting up an autoresponder
>
> agreeing to option (a) would mean that someone looking for the keyword
> "women@" in order to discuss an issue that he/she/they may initially feel
> fits into such a category, may not know to search for a "dev@" possibility
> instead, and so remain silence(d)
>
>
I plan to post to women@ indicating that we are closing the list and
dev@community welcomes their posts.
> on the other hand, agreeing to option (b) could help mitigate this
> circumstance
>
>
Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
activity has moved to dev@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
regards,
-jean
> but as the vote is currently construed, it is not possible to distinguish
> between options (a) and (b), and so a simple vote count at the end of this
> vote may miss the point
>
> personally, would like to keep a place for women@ if only for such aesthetic
> redirection for the time being at least ...
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> [X ] +1 let's dot it
>>>
>> -Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Benson Margulies wrote:
> There's a small potential that someone could misunderstand one thing
> in Jean's message, so I want to make what I see as a clearer statement
> of one point.
>
> Mailing lists of the form private@SomePMC.apache.org \are/ archived.
> Those archives are \not/ available to the general public, but they are
> fully available to all members of the ASF. Posting to a private list
> does not avoid creating a permanent trail and, and any member of the
> ASF may read the archive.
>
thanks for adding the clarification, Benson.
-jean
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
There's a small potential that someone could misunderstand one thing
in Jean's message, so I want to make what I see as a clearer statement
of one point.
Mailing lists of the form private@SomePMC.apache.org \are/ archived.
Those archives are \not/ available to the general public, but they are
fully available to all members of the ASF. Posting to a private list
does not avoid creating a permanent trail and, and any member of the
ASF may read the archive.
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
<snip/>
> On Oct 28th 2009 I made the women@ list aware of the opportunity to
> revitalize the women@ objectives through comdev [1]. Specifically I
> said "The women@a.o list has not really gone anywhere, but maybe this
> is another chance to look at the lack of female representation here at
> the ASF." This resulted in a few of the original women@ participants
> joining the comdev list where rolling women@ into comdev has been
> discussed on a few occasions.
At the risk of being too terse, I'll briefly provide my view on what
Ross said: "The women@a.o list has not really gone anywhere" and respond
to his question "Why haven't these people been posting to women@?"
The very women for whom we created the women@ list turned out to be
reluctant to post to a public, archived list. --Often out of sheer
shyness, but sometimes with good reason. Projects at Apache have open
(dev/user) lists that are publicly archived, and a private list for the
PMC to discuss people matters in private. women@, like several other
lists at apache, is an orphaned list, without any project home.
Helping women participate continues, but for the most part off-list.
I'll bet Danese also has had her share of queries as well.
I'm always happy to help somebody, but I prefer that it be in a context
that provides actual oversight so that if I am not available, somebody
else likely is; or if a particularly puzzling issue comes up, more
people can contribute to the resolution. And, occasionally, there is the
issue that needs to be handled in private.
comdev can provide that oversight and I think will be a more comfortable
place for people in general to interact. As Ross said, if activity picks
up, there could always be a women@community.apache.org.
regards,
-jean
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Bertrand wrote:
> Comdev people, please vote on folding women@ into this mailing list,
> see also [1].
>
> The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
> that directs people to this list instead.
>
> [ ] +1 let's dot it
> [ ] -1 no, because...
> [ ] +0 don't care
+1 (non-binding) to close the women@ list and have the autoresponder
point to dev@community. I would object to having the list remain open
but also have an autoresponder; that's just too confusing.
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
...
> Ross Gardler wrote:
...
>> The decision to roll women@ into ComDev was not "agreed" (as you put it)
>> at the barcamp session either. It was a suggestion from the board when the
>> ComDev resolution was passed.
>>
While there's a lot of interesting discussion here, and it's nice to see
people actively thinking about the issue of women@ again!, I'll just
point out the part: "...was a suggestion from the board..."
...
>> The actual decision to roll women@ into comdev is the subject of a vote
>> currently underway on comdev and this list was notified of the vote [2] to
>> ensure full transparency.
>>
>>
> Having duly noted the manner of this notification earlier this weekend, my
> concern has been, again, that the process of holding a vote that affects
> members of one list at a place off their home list, which therefore requires
> them to sign up to another list before even getting a chance to voice
> concerns relevant to them, is not good enough, even in this day and age imho
> - hence my specifically joining the women@ list this weekend in order to
> primarily bring these discussions, at least, back to its home turf.
Given the virtual silence on the women@ list for the past year or more,
I don't see any coherent community on the women@ list - hence, having
the ComDev PMC take over (however they feel is appropriate) is the right
thing to do. Lacking that, it's likely that either the board of infra
would simply shut down the women@ list without further discussion,
because it's not appropriate for the ASF to host resources without a
specific officer or PMC to be responsible for them. This isn't a value
judgement on what women@ is supposed to be for; it's simply that we need
to have a specific responsible owner for our resources.
Don't get me wrong: I would love to see some PMC find sufficient healthy
community to have someplace to comfortably discuss gender issues and
help do outreach to underserved communities. But the current women@
list doesn't qualify as a community (from the ASF perspective of
"community") at all at the moment.
- Shane
Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
No problem. So far all I've learned from this experience
is that Henri and Anjana should probably exchange phone
numbers so they can congratulate each other without bothering
their intellectual inferiors who are trying to do something
constructive on this list. The insinuation that somehow
my feelings have something to do with why the list was closed
is as annoying as all the self-congratulatory rhetoric Anjana
has been tossing around, combined with her repeated inability
to follow the instructions of her "peers".
----- Original Message ----
> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 11:20:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
>[VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
>
> Thanks Joe.
>
> Ross
>
> On 01/08/2010 13:19, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Anjana G Bhattacharjee<a....@gmail.com>
> >> To: Ted Dunning<te...@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: dev@community.apache.org
> >> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:40:27 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
> >> [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
> >>
> >> Hi Ted,
> >>
> >> Thanks for being willing to cc your reply to women@ - guess you got the
>same
> >> response to that one too, eh ?
> >>
> >> Now, who do you figure it was that had been willing to perform that
> >> operation ? And with what manner of sentiment ? And do such things matter
> >> for a next time around, for a next possible circumstance ?
> >
> > I have no idea what you're going on about, but I closed the women@ list
> > yesterday in response to a valid ticket being opened against the INFRA jira
> > roughly 2 weeks ago.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
[VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thanks Joe.
Ross
On 01/08/2010 13:19, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Anjana G Bhattacharjee<a....@gmail.com>
>> To: Ted Dunning<te...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: dev@community.apache.org
>> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:40:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
>> [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> Thanks for being willing to cc your reply to women@ - guess you got the same
>> response to that one too, eh ?
>>
>> Now, who do you figure it was that had been willing to perform that
>> operation ? And with what manner of sentiment ? And do such things matter
>> for a next time around, for a next possible circumstance ?
>
> I have no idea what you're going on about, but I closed the women@ list
> yesterday in response to a valid ticket being opened against the INFRA jira
> roughly 2 weeks ago.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883
>
>
>
Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>
> To: Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> Cc: dev@community.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:40:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
>[VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Thanks for being willing to cc your reply to women@ - guess you got the same
> response to that one too, eh ?
>
> Now, who do you figure it was that had been willing to perform that
> operation ? And with what manner of sentiment ? And do such things matter
> for a next time around, for a next possible circumstance ?
I have no idea what you're going on about, but I closed the women@ list
yesterday in response to a valid ticket being opened against the INFRA jira
roughly 2 weeks ago.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883
Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
[VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi Ted,
Thanks for being willing to cc your reply to women@ - guess you got the same
response to that one too, eh ?
Now, who do you figure it was that had been willing to perform that
operation ? And with what manner of sentiment ? And do such things matter
for a next time around, for a next possible circumstance ?
Best, A
PS - You originally scored a whole-in-one at the 9th with your first
response to the proposal, so you've already made the cut - how positively
sublime ;-)
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Process comes after somebody willing to perform the process.
>
> -1 to the proposed womAn mailing list.
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
> a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > as ever, my focus here is on process
>
Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
[VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Process comes after somebody willing to perform the process.
-1 to the proposed womAn mailing list.
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:
> as ever, my focus here is on process
Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
[VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Dear Ross,
Thanks for this - let me unpack it a little:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> This information you request can be harvested, but it takes time, a very
> precious commodity. The information may already be published somewhere
> publicly (someone may point us in the right direction if they are still
> reading).
>
Being able to generate this type of data may be useful for managing lists in
general - as ever, my focus here is on process - i.e how is the rolling of
one list into another being done - and so is a process that is likely to
come up again and again as projects get rolled into other projects,
activities get rolled into other activities, resources get rolled into other
resources.
So the question of how something gets "rolled" into something else, and the
example here of what this has entailed in practice, may well have an effect
on morale and motivation beyond the immediate circumstance.
As such, it is important that the process is taken seriously as a process in
and of itself, so others in line for being "rolled" at some point can
reassure themselves that if this happens to them, the process can be trusted
if not whoever happens to be in charge of that process when the time comes.
At present, this specific instance of how women@ is being "rolled" into
dev@community, is setting a precedent as we speak, so lets try setting as
good a precedent as we possibly can, because we may not be here a next time
round to help with due diligence of process, and this archive may be the
only thing that others will have to refer back to as one of the key examples
of accepted practice that it may become.
> If your concern is about a lack of support for women in the ASF then please
> understand this change gives a proper home for activities in support of all
> participants in the ASF.
>
Am all for supporting all participants, whether they happen to be
categorised as "women" or not - hence my proposal for womAn@
> I would like to make a suggestion. Why not help us celebrate the success
> of women here in the ASF. Here at comdev we'd be really happy to publish a
> blog item on the increasing importance of women here at the ASF.
>
A blog item is not going stop the discerning visitor from reviewing the
published archives for themselves - if you practice what you aspire to
practicing, it should be self evident from each and every conversation we
have with eachother - and if something else is evident from that, then how
about we try seeing that for ourselves first?
> A little research into the achievements of women here in the ASF would, in
> my opinion, produce very positive results. I'm sure folk here will be happy
> to help with thus kind of activity, as long as you are willing to produce
> something of us to us, such as a celebratory blog post.
>
Let's see what a diagnostic tool like womAn@ throws up and take it from
there. You may like what you find, and then again, you may not. But that's
the nature of curiousity-driven work in contrast, perhaps, to some hired
consultant or PR agent that may be inclined to give you what they are being
paid for. Nobody's being paid for this one, and likely there'll be no thanks
for it either, let alone point scoring against the prevailing form of
meritocracy - positive, or otherwise.
> I think the ASF can be very proud of the many women who are driving our
> projects and foundation forward. Let's not waste time on an activity which
> we have decided was not working and instead celebrate and learn from the
> activities that are working.
>
Including womAn@ - if only a proposal for now ;-)
Best, A
PS - forgive me for cross-posting to women@ - am still hoping that some may
be persuaded to give dev@community a go as we continue to talk through what
may otherwise be rendered missed understandings only.
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On 31 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
> a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > Thanks for replying to this here at women@ - the post was in response to
> a
> > message posted to women@ only, and so technically, my reply was
> necessarily
> > in response to the post at women@ and then cross-posted to dev@community
> ,
> > rather than vice versa, with all due respect ;-)
> >
> > Am conscious that there may be subscribers to women@ that have yet to
> decide
> > whether or not to bother subscribing to dev@community at this stage,
> > although may yet decide to do so as we speak.
> >
> > So just to check:
> >
> > 1. As moderator for this women@ list, do you know how many subscribers
> to
> > women@ there are in total as at today?
> > 2. Can you tell how many are currently subscribers to both women@ and
> > dev@community? And so can you work out how many subscribers will no
> > longer be subscribed to either list if women@ were to be closed today?
> > 3. Would you then be able to compare this number to a possibly
> different
> > number in, say, 7 days time?
> >
> > Best, A
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jta@bristowhill.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena
> of
> >>> Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's
> >>> only)
> >>> tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst
> >>> this
> >>> weekend's "Women's British Open" was left to its own devices, albeit
> >>> rather
> >>> carefully done imho [2]
> >>>
> >>> The equivalent explanation wanting here, therefore, is why IBM would
> >>> sponsor
> >>> the Masters whilst missing the "gender balancing" [3] opportunity to
> >>> sponsor
> >>> both for possibly marginal marginal cost afaik given the relevant
> >>> technologies would already have been tried and tested by then?
> >>>
> >>> More generally, what does "sponsorship" mean for a corporate like IBM
> in
> >>> this case - and what could it mean a next time around? Specifically, a
> >>> next
> >>> time around with regards open community development? For example, could
> HP
> >>> be our Ricoh?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I doubt there's anyone subscribed to these apache lists who can speak on
> >> behalf of IBM -- or any other company, for that matter. I did a quick
> search
> >> at www.ibm.com and a better option might be for you to check the
> resources
> >> at http://www.ibm.com/diversity. There might be somebody you can
> contact
> >> with your questions/concerns.
> >>
> >> Please stop cross-posting to women@. Once somebody on the
> infrastructure
> >> team frees up time to take care of
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883 , posts to women@will
> >> start auto-responding with a message to subscribe to
> dev@communityinstead. It would be confusing for a conversation on
> women@to stop midway, so best to keep the conversations moving forward
> entirely on
> >> dev@community.
> >>
> >> That much said, I left women@ on this reply deliberately as a reminder
> to
> >> women@ subscribers that it will stop accepting posts sometime soon --
> we
> >> don't know exactly when. So please subscribe to
> dev@community.Instructions are at
> >> http://community.apache.org.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> -jean
> >>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-ibm--the-masters-technology.html
> >>> [2] http://www.ricohwomensbritishopen.com/Ricoh.aspx
> >>> [3]
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.openworldforum.org/attend/agenda/diversity-summit-why-women-matter
> >>> [4] http://www.rydercup.com/2010/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
This information you request can be harvested, but it takes time, a very precious commodity. The information may already be published somewhere publicly (someone may point us in the right direction if they are still reading).
If your concern is about a lack of support for women in the ASF then please understand this change gives a proper home for activities in support of all participants in the ASF.
I would like to make a suggestion. Why not help us celebrate the success of women here in the ASF. Here at comdev we'd be really happy to publish a blog item on the increasing importance of women here at the ASF.
A little research into the achievements of women here in the ASF would, in my opinion, produce very positive results. I'm sure folk here will be happy to help with thus kind of activity, as long as you are willing to produce something of us to us, such as a celebratory blog post.
I think the ASF can be very proud of the many women who are driving our projects and foundation forward. Let's not waste time on an activity which we have decided was not working and instead celebrate and learn from the activities that are working.
Sent from my mobile device.
On 31 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Thanks for replying to this here at women@ - the post was in response to a
> message posted to women@ only, and so technically, my reply was necessarily
> in response to the post at women@ and then cross-posted to dev@community,
> rather than vice versa, with all due respect ;-)
>
> Am conscious that there may be subscribers to women@ that have yet to decide
> whether or not to bother subscribing to dev@community at this stage,
> although may yet decide to do so as we speak.
>
> So just to check:
>
> 1. As moderator for this women@ list, do you know how many subscribers to
> women@ there are in total as at today?
> 2. Can you tell how many are currently subscribers to both women@ and
> dev@community? And so can you work out how many subscribers will no
> longer be subscribed to either list if women@ were to be closed today?
> 3. Would you then be able to compare this number to a possibly different
> number in, say, 7 days time?
>
> Best, A
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>wrote:
>
>> Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of
>>> Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's
>>> only)
>>> tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst
>>> this
>>> weekend's "Women's British Open" was left to its own devices, albeit
>>> rather
>>> carefully done imho [2]
>>>
>>> The equivalent explanation wanting here, therefore, is why IBM would
>>> sponsor
>>> the Masters whilst missing the "gender balancing" [3] opportunity to
>>> sponsor
>>> both for possibly marginal marginal cost afaik given the relevant
>>> technologies would already have been tried and tested by then?
>>>
>>> More generally, what does "sponsorship" mean for a corporate like IBM in
>>> this case - and what could it mean a next time around? Specifically, a
>>> next
>>> time around with regards open community development? For example, could HP
>>> be our Ricoh?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I doubt there's anyone subscribed to these apache lists who can speak on
>> behalf of IBM -- or any other company, for that matter. I did a quick search
>> at www.ibm.com and a better option might be for you to check the resources
>> at http://www.ibm.com/diversity. There might be somebody you can contact
>> with your questions/concerns.
>>
>> Please stop cross-posting to women@. Once somebody on the infrastructure
>> team frees up time to take care of
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883 , posts to women@ will
>> start auto-responding with a message to subscribe to dev@communityinstead. It would be confusing for a conversation on women@to stop midway, so best to keep the conversations moving forward entirely on
>> dev@community.
>>
>> That much said, I left women@ on this reply deliberately as a reminder to
>> women@ subscribers that it will stop accepting posts sometime soon -- we
>> don't know exactly when. So please subscribe to dev@community.Instructions are at
>> http://community.apache.org.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> -jean
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-ibm--the-masters-technology.html
>>> [2] http://www.ricohwomensbritishopen.com/Ricoh.aspx
>>> [3]
>>>
>>> http://www.openworldforum.org/attend/agenda/diversity-summit-why-women-matter
>>> [4] http://www.rydercup.com/2010/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi Jean,
Thanks for replying to this here at women@ - the post was in response to a
message posted to women@ only, and so technically, my reply was necessarily
in response to the post at women@ and then cross-posted to dev@community,
rather than vice versa, with all due respect ;-)
Am conscious that there may be subscribers to women@ that have yet to decide
whether or not to bother subscribing to dev@community at this stage,
although may yet decide to do so as we speak.
So just to check:
1. As moderator for this women@ list, do you know how many subscribers to
women@ there are in total as at today?
2. Can you tell how many are currently subscribers to both women@ and
dev@community? And so can you work out how many subscribers will no
longer be subscribed to either list if women@ were to be closed today?
3. Would you then be able to compare this number to a possibly different
number in, say, 7 days time?
Best, A
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>wrote:
> Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of
>> Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's
>> only)
>> tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst
>> this
>> weekend's "Women's British Open" was left to its own devices, albeit
>> rather
>> carefully done imho [2]
>>
>> The equivalent explanation wanting here, therefore, is why IBM would
>> sponsor
>> the Masters whilst missing the "gender balancing" [3] opportunity to
>> sponsor
>> both for possibly marginal marginal cost afaik given the relevant
>> technologies would already have been tried and tested by then?
>>
>> More generally, what does "sponsorship" mean for a corporate like IBM in
>> this case - and what could it mean a next time around? Specifically, a
>> next
>> time around with regards open community development? For example, could HP
>> be our Ricoh?
>>
>>
>
> I doubt there's anyone subscribed to these apache lists who can speak on
> behalf of IBM -- or any other company, for that matter. I did a quick search
> at www.ibm.com and a better option might be for you to check the resources
> at http://www.ibm.com/diversity. There might be somebody you can contact
> with your questions/concerns.
>
> Please stop cross-posting to women@. Once somebody on the infrastructure
> team frees up time to take care of
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883 , posts to women@ will
> start auto-responding with a message to subscribe to dev@communityinstead. It would be confusing for a conversation on women@to stop midway, so best to keep the conversations moving forward entirely on
> dev@community.
>
> That much said, I left women@ on this reply deliberately as a reminder to
> women@ subscribers that it will stop accepting posts sometime soon -- we
> don't know exactly when. So please subscribe to dev@community.Instructions are at
> http://community.apache.org.
>
> regards,
>
> -jean
>
> <snip/>
>
> [1]
>>
>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-ibm--the-masters-technology.html
>> [2] http://www.ricohwomensbritishopen.com/Ricoh.aspx
>> [3]
>>
>> http://www.openworldforum.org/attend/agenda/diversity-summit-why-women-matter
>> [4] http://www.rydercup.com/2010/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
<snip/>
> Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of
> Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's only)
> tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst this
> weekend's "Women's British Open" was left to its own devices, albeit rather
> carefully done imho [2]
>
> The equivalent explanation wanting here, therefore, is why IBM would sponsor
> the Masters whilst missing the "gender balancing" [3] opportunity to sponsor
> both for possibly marginal marginal cost afaik given the relevant
> technologies would already have been tried and tested by then?
>
> More generally, what does "sponsorship" mean for a corporate like IBM in
> this case - and what could it mean a next time around? Specifically, a next
> time around with regards open community development? For example, could HP
> be our Ricoh?
>
I doubt there's anyone subscribed to these apache lists who can speak on
behalf of IBM -- or any other company, for that matter. I did a quick
search at www.ibm.com and a better option might be for you to check the
resources at http://www.ibm.com/diversity. There might be somebody you
can contact with your questions/concerns.
Please stop cross-posting to women@. Once somebody on the
infrastructure team frees up time to take care of
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883 , posts to women@ will
start auto-responding with a message to subscribe to dev@community
instead. It would be confusing for a conversation on women@ to stop
midway, so best to keep the conversations moving forward entirely on
dev@community.
That much said, I left women@ on this reply deliberately as a reminder
to women@ subscribers that it will stop accepting posts sometime soon --
we don't know exactly when. So please subscribe to dev@community.
Instructions are at http://community.apache.org.
regards,
-jean
<snip/>
> [1]
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-ibm--the-masters-technology.html
> [2] http://www.ricohwomensbritishopen.com/Ricoh.aspx
> [3]
> http://www.openworldforum.org/attend/agenda/diversity-summit-why-women-matter
> [4] http://www.rydercup.com/2010/
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net
> wrote:
> It is actually my hope that a separate list will not be necessary as I tend
> to like a more integrated approach. (I did not much care, for example,
> explaining to my middle school son why a free technology camp this summer
> was being offered only to girls)
>
Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of
Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's only)
tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst this
weekend's "Women's British Open" was left to its own devices, albeit rather
carefully done imho [2]
The equivalent explanation wanting here, therefore, is why IBM would sponsor
the Masters whilst missing the "gender balancing" [3] opportunity to sponsor
both for possibly marginal marginal cost afaik given the relevant
technologies would already have been tried and tested by then?
More generally, what does "sponsorship" mean for a corporate like IBM in
this case - and what could it mean a next time around? Specifically, a next
time around with regards open community development? For example, could HP
be our Ricoh?
By way of comparison, this October's Ryder Cup is a more traditionally
entertainment oriented "Turner Sports Interactive" production [4] subject to
the usual viewer ratings models only, for the time being at least.
Best, A
[1]
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-ibm--the-masters-technology.html
[2] http://www.ricohwomensbritishopen.com/Ricoh.aspx
[3]
http://www.openworldforum.org/attend/agenda/diversity-summit-why-women-matter
[4] http://www.rydercup.com/2010/
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
On 7/19/2010 10:35 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> "So much emptiness,
> even with the windows shut,
> especially since no one ever lived inside.
> How do we listen to silence
> and learn to keep listening?"
>
> Empty Houses in Baja California
> Poems No.27
> by Kenneth Liberman
> (my friend and mentor)
>
I am not a fan of cross-posts but I guess I will respond to this one.
I don't think it is how you meant it, but I really think that this poem
is really an excellent description of women@ these many years, a silent
house where no one ever lived inside. There was just no "there",
there, and the current exercise was mostly to make sure the utilities
were shut off and such. I don't think anyone on the existing list felt
evicted or we would have heard from them by now. Your new interest in
it is great, but it certainly would be healthier to start completely
from scratch with a solid foundation.
As Bertrand suggests, it is entirely within the realm of possibility
that the lessons learned from the experiment can feed back into
creating a list that really works, something with a defined purpose, a
way of making it happen and a membership committed to doing so in the
context of making great Apache software.
Kathey
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Anjana,
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee
<a....@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...How do we listen to silence
> and learn to keep listening?"...
I find listening to silence on mailing lists fairly hard, and making
sense of it even harder.
I have tallied the vote about women@ as there was clear consensus
amongst comdev PMC members about that decision. If you think a
women-specific forum is needed, feel free to start a new thread about
that on the dev@community.apache.org list, briefly stating your goals.
Thanks,
-Bertrand
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
"So much emptiness,
even with the windows shut,
especially since no one ever lived inside.
How do we listen to silence
and learn to keep listening?"
Empty Houses in Baja California
Poems No.27
by Kenneth Liberman
(my friend and mentor)
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> Just keep the channel open - how
> much is it costing us to run? Is the workload to heavy and need it be
> rotated every few years or so to keep it alive?
I'm an active moderator for women@ and the workload is not onerous, but
it does exist, and both the list and the wiki must be monitored. Women@
is a special case because we set it up with moderated subscriptions,
which is why your request to join the list on Saturday was delayed
several hours -- I was out grocery shopping.
I respect your concerns, Anjana, and appreciate the due diligence you
are providing, but it doesn't make sense to me to accept any more
subscription requests for a list with this level of inactivity. Given my
experience with women@ over the last 5 years, I believe comdev is the
clearly the best way to go, and is the most likely measure to spark
increased, visible participation.
regards,
-jean
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Dear Ross,
Firstly, thank you for your questions - and no need whatsoever to forgive
you for asking - the fact that you are finally asking again is vindication
enough, for the time being at least ;-)
Secondly, should say for the record that have just picked up this message,
and am replying having read the additional messages received with regards
this thread since as at the time of writing, including Jean's, Benson's,
Jean's and Noirin's thus far, and much appreciate the efforts at continuing
discussion at this stage.
Thirdly, let me step through each of your questions in turn below, and hope
this helps clarify my vantage point on the matters at hand:
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Before addressing your suggestion I first wish to correct a few errors in
> your post.
>
Would suggest that these may not be "errors" as such, and may rather simply
be matters that we see differently from our respective vantage points.
Arguably, using a language of "errors" can be off putting for respectful
discussion, if not inadvertently stamp it out completely before it has had a
chance to take root.
>
> The creation of ComDev was not made at the barcamp session you refer to. It
> was created prior to that meeting as a result of discussion through the
> normal ASF mailing lists and a subsequent Board Resolution.
>
Creationism versus evolutionary theory is a big debate, and the timing of
the creation of ComDev may be similarly so - another way of considering when
and how a group is, or can be, created is to work on the assumption that it
is already dead unless we keep it alive, moment to moment, conversation to
conversation, list to list.
>
> The decision to roll women@ into ComDev was not "agreed" (as you put it)
> at the barcamp session either. It was a suggestion from the board when the
> ComDev resolution was passed.
>
My placing the term "agreed" in quotation marks refers to the perceived
working agreement kept appeared to keep the idea of something having been
sufficiently "agreed" in play - sure, nothing was really agreed and that was
the point being made by the lady sitting beside me - a point of process
rather than content on that particular occasion.
>
> On Oct 28th 2009 I made the women@ list aware of the opportunity to
> revitalize the women@ objectives through comdev [1]. Specifically I said
> "The women@a.o list has not really gone anywhere, but maybe this is
> another chance to look at the lack of female representation here at the
> ASF." This resulted in a few of the original women@ participants joining
> the comdev list where rolling women@ into comdev has been discussed on a
> few occasions.
>
As described, it is my recollection that though the BarCamp meeting,
face-to-face, did follow your post to the list, it did not quite achieve
what it said on the tin - again, that self-same matter of process that
remains a constant concern, and long may it do so - this is not the first
and last time such matters will come up in all its different guises, albeit
it may be one of the first times that we are addressing it openly and
publicly on-list - here, then, let's appreciate that as list members change,
social practices can change also, and it can be developmentally
time-critical to be open to ever open to this possibility, if we are not to
get into habits of chucking newbies out with bathwaters.
> The actual decision to roll women@ into comdev is the subject of a vote
> currently underway on comdev and this list was notified of the vote [2] to
> ensure full transparency.
>
>
Having duly noted the manner of this notification earlier this weekend, my
concern has been, again, that the process of holding a vote that affects
members of one list at a place off their home list, which therefore requires
them to sign up to another list before even getting a chance to voice
concerns relevant to them, is not good enough, even in this day and age imho
- hence my specifically joining the women@ list this weekend in order to
primarily bring these discussions, at least, back to its home turf.
> OK, so that's the history of how we got here. No to look at your concerns.
>
Freudian slip: No ? :-)
>
> You argue that a better solution would be to leave women@ open merely
> suggesting that comdev may be an appropriate alternative. I would counter
> that this only serves to split any effort that might emerge. Long history
> here at the ASF has shown that splitting communities along artificial lines
> results in weaker communities.
>
The options provided by the autoresponder could be worded to include
explanation of the effort to avoid a "split", without assuming that there
may yet be a reason to prefer posting to women@ rather than dev@ from the
outset.
>
> However, given that our communities do not have adequate representation
> from women perhaps this is an exceptional case. Please forgive me while I
> ask a few basic questions.
>
> Why would someone post to women@ but not to comdev? That is, what does
> women@ provide that comdev does not (or vice-versa)?
>
>
Don't know yet - let's see what people do over the next year or so as
mentors and mentees start to come on board, some of whom may be women, so of
whom may have cultural reasons for prefering a women@ interation to
dev@whilst their spouse monitors their internet use back home - who
knows? And
would this be our business to know? To pry? Just keep the channel open - how
much is it costing us to run? Is the workload to heavy and need it be
rotated every few years or so to keep it alive? Might there be meritocratic
mechanisms for enabling us to do so? For example, Lady Captains at golf
clubs tend to serve for a year whilst grooming a next generation and
remaining as Lady-Captains-at-large therafter. Few volunteer to take up the
challenge more than once if they can help it, though some manage to
introduce mixed match days between men and women in their club more easily
than others (perhaps depending on the serving (Man) Captain at the time, who
knows)
> Why haven't these people been posting to women@?
>
Did you ever get a chance to read the research paper on the "Effects of
Gender Socialization ..." referred to earlier in this thread?
>
> If we do bring women@ into comdev what can comdev do to address these
> problems?
>
>
Perhaps it may be easier to bring ComDev into women@ to begin with, as we
are doing now, with a view to being open to ComDev being made redundant in
due course, on equal footing to the idea that women@ should be so already
;-)
> How can comdev attract sufficiently motivated and time rich volunteers to
> make this happen?
>
>
My preference would be to step back from ComDev and take women@ as my
starting point from here on in - ComDev is getting a little noisy for my own
liking - but then, does this help?
Or would you rather me leave my participation for one all on the back burner
for now?
This is not a rhetorical question, am sure you understand.
Best, A
> Forgive me for asking these questions. They are genuine questions, I am
> concerned that I'm missing an important point here.
>
> Ross
>
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200910.mbox/browser
>
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/201007.mbox/browser
>
>
>
> On 18/07/2010 22:39, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> Thanks for replying to the women@ list and cc-ing to others as
>> appropriate
>>
>> The matter at hand is of course one of decision-making process, albeit
>> with
>> regards to women@ on this occasion, and it is the process that concerns
>> me,
>> given that it may not be condusive to community development in its fullest
>> sense and may, at best, turn out to engender mediocracy as if it were
>> meritocracy in the longer term.
>>
>> Having participated in face-to-face discussions on topic, including the
>> meeting last November when the formation of ComDev together with the idea
>> of
>> closing the women@ list was "agreed", my recollection is of the lady
>> seated
>> next to me, albeit not an apache member as yet afaik, commenting on her
>> utter disbelief at what had just taken place by way of passing for
>> "consensus" on the matter.
>>
>> Personally think that it will be interesting to try rolling women@
>> into dev@whilst keeping women@open on the off chance that it doesn't
>> really. If an autoresponder could be
>> set up to introduce dev@ as an alternative place to post, without it
>> being
>> compulsory to do so, then we could keep a count of how many of those
>> intending to post to women@ take up the offer of posting to dev@ instead,
>> without being compelled to do so. Compelling any single person, let alone
>> a
>> group, to do anything other than what they are and /or have been trying to
>> do in all good faith can be painful.
>>
>> But then, in this day an age, dare our generation be the ones to try
>> setting
>> any example otherwise? Does anyone care enough here?
>>
>> Best, A
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ross Gardler<rg...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Anjana,
>>>
>>> The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work
>>> around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So
>>> if
>>> someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set
>>> up.
>>>
>>> This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've
>>> not
>>> seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you
>>> raise.
>>>
>>> I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer:
>>>
>>> Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway.
>>>
>>> The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all
>>> discussion, as have a number of members of that list.
>>>
>>> Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business
>>> from
>>> that list will move here.
>>>
>>> An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the
>>> original
>>> vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this).
>>>
>>> By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be
>>> officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive
>>> list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable
>>> us
>>> to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can
>>> create a women@community.a.o as appropriate.
>>>
>>> Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going
>>> to
>>> vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile device.
>>>
>>> On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee<
>>> a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
>>>>> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
>>>>>
>>>> was
>>>
>>>> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-)
>>>>>
>>>> but
>>>
>>>> no harm done.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear,
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> so is potentially harmful.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
>>>> options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
>>>> voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for
>>>> something
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@into
>>>> dev@ ?
>>>>
>>>> Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder
>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>> direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
>>>>
>>>> Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together
>>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>> an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to
>>>> dev@instead,
>>>> without it being compulsory to do so?
>>>>
>>>> And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they
>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>> being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being
>>>>
>>> done?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of
>>>>
>>> these
>>>
>>>> discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has
>>>> been
>>>> principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps, A
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Before addressing your suggestion I first wish to correct a few errors
in your post.
The creation of ComDev was not made at the barcamp session you refer to.
It was created prior to that meeting as a result of discussion through
the normal ASF mailing lists and a subsequent Board Resolution.
The decision to roll women@ into ComDev was not "agreed" (as you put it)
at the barcamp session either. It was a suggestion from the board when
the ComDev resolution was passed.
On Oct 28th 2009 I made the women@ list aware of the opportunity to
revitalize the women@ objectives through comdev [1]. Specifically I said
"The women@a.o list has not really gone anywhere, but maybe this is
another chance to look at the lack of female representation here at the
ASF." This resulted in a few of the original women@ participants joining
the comdev list where rolling women@ into comdev has been discussed on a
few occasions.
The actual decision to roll women@ into comdev is the subject of a vote
currently underway on comdev and this list was notified of the vote [2]
to ensure full transparency.
OK, so that's the history of how we got here. No to look at your concerns.
You argue that a better solution would be to leave women@ open merely
suggesting that comdev may be an appropriate alternative. I would
counter that this only serves to split any effort that might emerge.
Long history here at the ASF has shown that splitting communities along
artificial lines results in weaker communities.
However, given that our communities do not have adequate representation
from women perhaps this is an exceptional case. Please forgive me while
I ask a few basic questions.
Why would someone post to women@ but not to comdev? That is, what does
women@ provide that comdev does not (or vice-versa)?
Why haven't these people been posting to women@?
If we do bring women@ into comdev what can comdev do to address these
problems?
How can comdev attract sufficiently motivated and time rich volunteers
to make this happen?
Forgive me for asking these questions. They are genuine questions, I am
concerned that I'm missing an important point here.
Ross
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200910.mbox/browser
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/201007.mbox/browser
On 18/07/2010 22:39, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for replying to the women@ list and cc-ing to others as appropriate
>
> The matter at hand is of course one of decision-making process, albeit with
> regards to women@ on this occasion, and it is the process that concerns me,
> given that it may not be condusive to community development in its fullest
> sense and may, at best, turn out to engender mediocracy as if it were
> meritocracy in the longer term.
>
> Having participated in face-to-face discussions on topic, including the
> meeting last November when the formation of ComDev together with the idea of
> closing the women@ list was "agreed", my recollection is of the lady seated
> next to me, albeit not an apache member as yet afaik, commenting on her
> utter disbelief at what had just taken place by way of passing for
> "consensus" on the matter.
>
> Personally think that it will be interesting to try rolling women@
> into dev@whilst keeping women@open on the off chance that it doesn't
> really. If an autoresponder could be
> set up to introduce dev@ as an alternative place to post, without it being
> compulsory to do so, then we could keep a count of how many of those
> intending to post to women@ take up the offer of posting to dev@ instead,
> without being compelled to do so. Compelling any single person, let alone a
> group, to do anything other than what they are and /or have been trying to
> do in all good faith can be painful.
>
> But then, in this day an age, dare our generation be the ones to try setting
> any example otherwise? Does anyone care enough here?
>
> Best, A
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ross Gardler<rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Anjana,
>>
>> The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work
>> around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if
>> someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set
>> up.
>>
>> This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've not
>> seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you
>> raise.
>>
>> I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer:
>>
>> Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway.
>>
>> The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all
>> discussion, as have a number of members of that list.
>>
>> Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business from
>> that list will move here.
>>
>> An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the original
>> vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this).
>>
>> By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be
>> officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive
>> list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable us
>> to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can
>> create a women@community.a.o as appropriate.
>>
>> Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going to
>> vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device.
>>
>> On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee<
>> a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
>>>> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
>> was
>>>> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-)
>> but
>>>> no harm done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of
>> the
>>> vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear,
>> and
>>> so is potentially harmful.
>>>
>>> In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
>>> options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
>>> voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something
>>> else.
>>>
>>> In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@into
>>> dev@ ?
>>>
>>> Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder
>> to
>>> direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
>>>
>>> Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together
>> with
>>> an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to dev@instead,
>>> without it being compulsory to do so?
>>>
>>> And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they
>> are
>>> being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being
>> done?
>>>
>>> Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of
>> these
>>> discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been
>>> principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps, A
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross,
Thanks for replying to the women@ list and cc-ing to others as appropriate
The matter at hand is of course one of decision-making process, albeit with
regards to women@ on this occasion, and it is the process that concerns me,
given that it may not be condusive to community development in its fullest
sense and may, at best, turn out to engender mediocracy as if it were
meritocracy in the longer term.
Having participated in face-to-face discussions on topic, including the
meeting last November when the formation of ComDev together with the idea of
closing the women@ list was "agreed", my recollection is of the lady seated
next to me, albeit not an apache member as yet afaik, commenting on her
utter disbelief at what had just taken place by way of passing for
"consensus" on the matter.
Personally think that it will be interesting to try rolling women@
into dev@whilst keeping women@open on the off chance that it doesn't
really. If an autoresponder could be
set up to introduce dev@ as an alternative place to post, without it being
compulsory to do so, then we could keep a count of how many of those
intending to post to women@ take up the offer of posting to dev@ instead,
without being compelled to do so. Compelling any single person, let alone a
group, to do anything other than what they are and /or have been trying to
do in all good faith can be painful.
But then, in this day an age, dare our generation be the ones to try setting
any example otherwise? Does anyone care enough here?
Best, A
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Anjana,
>
> The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work
> around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if
> someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set
> up.
>
> This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've not
> seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you
> raise.
>
> I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer:
>
> Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway.
>
> The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all
> discussion, as have a number of members of that list.
>
> Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business from
> that list will move here.
>
> An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the original
> vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this).
>
> By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be
> officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive
> list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable us
> to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can
> create a women@community.a.o as appropriate.
>
> Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going to
> vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
>
> Ross
>
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
> a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
> >> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
> was
> >> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-)
> but
> >> no harm done.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of
> the
> > vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear,
> and
> > so is potentially harmful.
> >
> > In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
> > options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
> > voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something
> > else.
> >
> > In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@into
> > dev@ ?
> >
> > Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder
> to
> > direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
> >
> > Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together
> with
> > an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to dev@instead,
> > without it being compulsory to do so?
> >
> > And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they
> are
> > being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being
> done?
> >
> > Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of
> these
> > discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been
> > principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
> >
> > Hope this helps, A
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Anjana,
The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set up.
This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've not seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you raise.
I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer:
Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway.
The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all discussion, as have a number of members of that list.
Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business from that list will move here.
An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the original vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this).
By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable us to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can create a women@community.a.o as appropriate.
Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going to vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
Ross
Sent from my mobile device.
On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
>> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which was
>> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-) but
>> no harm done.
>>
>
> Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of the
> vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear, and
> so is potentially harmful.
>
> In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
> options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
> voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something
> else.
>
> In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@ into
> dev@ ?
>
> Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder to
> direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
>
> Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together with
> an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to dev@ instead,
> without it being compulsory to do so?
>
> And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they are
> being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being done?
>
> Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of these
> discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been
> principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
>
> Hope this helps, A
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which was
> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-) but
> no harm done.
>
Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of the
vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear, and
so is potentially harmful.
In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something
else.
In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@ into
dev@ ?
Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder to
direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together with
an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to dev@ instead,
without it being compulsory to do so?
And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they are
being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being done?
Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of these
discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been
principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
Hope this helps, A
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Certainly doesn't sound like noise to me - but maybe we should
> continue this conversation on the women@ list ?
>
It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
was responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens
:-) but no harm done.
regards,
-jean
> Best, A
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jta@bristowhill.com
> <ma...@bristowhill.com>> wrote:
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that
> women@ activity has moved to dev@community. If this vote
> passes, I'll check with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder
> can be set up.
>
>
> d'oh! I was guilty of being distracted and not reading closely
> enough to realize Bertrand made the autoresponder suggestion in
> his original post.
>
> sorry for the noise,
>
> -jean
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi Jean,
Certainly doesn't sound like noise to me - but maybe we should continue this
conversation on the women@ list ?
Best, A
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@activity has moved to dev@community.If this vote passes, I'll check with infra@to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
>>
>>
> d'oh! I was guilty of being distracted and not reading closely enough to
> realize Bertrand made the autoresponder suggestion in his original post.
>
> sorry for the noise,
>
> -jean
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
> activity has moved to dev@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
> with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
>
d'oh! I was guilty of being distracted and not reading closely enough to
realize Bertrand made the autoresponder suggestion in his original post.
sorry for the noise,
-jean
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the data point. This means that marcmail.com is no longer indexing women@
I have no idea why.
However, the arguments for bringing women@ into comdev stand in my opinion.
Sent from my mobile device.
On 17 Jul 2010, at 18:44, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
>> 2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most recent
>> email being Sept 14th 2007.
>
>
>> The fact is that people are not looking for a list called "women@".
>> Nevertheless the reasons that the list was originally created are still
>> valid.
>>
>> The community development project was created last year. In our original
>> resolution we had not proposed taking the women@ "activity". Instead we
>> are focussing on making it easier for people in general rather than on the
>> issues facing a specific group. The board requested that we take ownership
>> of the women@ work too. Since women@ has always been "just a list" it has
>> had no official role in the foundation. Bringing the activity into ComDev
>> provides a vehicle through which more action can be taken if there are
>> people willing and able to undertake such action.
>>
>> Rolling the women@ list into the dev@community.a.o list need not be a
>> permanent solution. If there is sufficient momentum behind the women@objectives then we could, at some point in the future, create
>> women@community.apache.org - however, at this point in time there is no
>> need for such a list as demonstrated by the lack of activity on the existing
>> women@ list [2].
>>
>
> Please note that the source data used above is incorrect, with the most
> recent email activity actually going a little way beyond Sept 14th 2007 [1],
> including an interesting post dated 3rd March 2009 [2] which links to some
> research work done on the "Effects of Gender Socialization on Females in the
> Open Source Community" [3]
>
> Hope this helps, A
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200903.mbox/browser
> [3] http://short-stack.net/Paper.pdf
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
> 2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most recent
> email being Sept 14th 2007.
> The fact is that people are not looking for a list called "women@".
> Nevertheless the reasons that the list was originally created are still
> valid.
>
> The community development project was created last year. In our original
> resolution we had not proposed taking the women@ "activity". Instead we
> are focussing on making it easier for people in general rather than on the
> issues facing a specific group. The board requested that we take ownership
> of the women@ work too. Since women@ has always been "just a list" it has
> had no official role in the foundation. Bringing the activity into ComDev
> provides a vehicle through which more action can be taken if there are
> people willing and able to undertake such action.
>
> Rolling the women@ list into the dev@community.a.o list need not be a
> permanent solution. If there is sufficient momentum behind the women@objectives then we could, at some point in the future, create
> women@community.apache.org - however, at this point in time there is no
> need for such a list as demonstrated by the lack of activity on the existing
> women@ list [2].
>
Please note that the source data used above is incorrect, with the most
recent email activity actually going a little way beyond Sept 14th 2007 [1],
including an interesting post dated 3rd March 2009 [2] which links to some
research work done on the "Effects of Gender Socialization on Females in the
Open Source Community" [3]
Hope this helps, A
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200903.mbox/browser
[3] http://short-stack.net/Paper.pdf
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Anjana,
Thanks for your comments.
A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most
recent email being Sept 14th 2007.
The fact is that people are not looking for a list called "women@".
Nevertheless the reasons that the list was originally created are still
valid.
The community development project was created last year. In our original
resolution we had not proposed taking the women@ "activity". Instead we
are focussing on making it easier for people in general rather than on
the issues facing a specific group. The board requested that we take
ownership of the women@ work too. Since women@ has always been "just a
list" it has had no official role in the foundation. Bringing the
activity into ComDev provides a vehicle through which more action can be
taken if there are people willing and able to undertake such action.
Rolling the women@ list into the dev@community.a.o list need not be a
permanent solution. If there is sufficient momentum behind the women@
objectives then we could, at some point in the future, create
women@community.apache.org - however, at this point in time there is no
need for such a list as demonstrated by the lack of activity on the
existing women@ list [2].
Today, if you search for "women" on the apache website the first hit is
the women section of the wiki [1]. By bringing women@ list (and
objectives) under the ComDev banner we are potentially providing a much
more "official" and "recognisable" home for women@ activities.
It is my hope that we can take advantage of the fact that the Community
Development team consists of approximately 50% men and women.
Ross
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/Women/
[2]
http://markmail.org/search/women+list:org.apache.women+order:date-backward
On 16/07/2010 16:15, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>> -1 (unbinding)
>>
>> because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
>> relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any
>> vote,
>> so to speak
>>
>> in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
>> between the options of:
>>
>> (a) closing women@ and
>> (b) setting up an autoresponder
>>
>> agreeing to option (a) would mean that someone looking for the keyword
>> "women@" in order to discuss an issue that he/she/they may initially feel
>> fits into such a category, may not know to search for a "dev@"
>> possibility
>> instead, and so remain silence(d)
>>
> I plan to post to women@ indicating that we are closing the list and
> dev@community welcomes their posts.
>
>> on the other hand, agreeing to option (b) could help mitigate this
>> circumstance
>>
> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
> activity has moved to dev@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
> with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
>
> regards,
>
> -jean
>
>> but as the vote is currently construed, it is not possible to distinguish
>> between options (a) and (b), and so a simple vote count at the end of
>> this
>> vote may miss the point
>>
>> personally, would like to keep a place for women@ if only for such
>> aesthetic
>> redirection for the time being at least ...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> [X ] +1 let's dot it
>>> -Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)
>>>
>>
>
--
rgardler@apache.org
@rgardler