LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  December 2012

CODE4LIB December 2012

Subject:

Re: Question abt the code4libwomen idea

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:12:30 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (97 lines)

I agree. Everyone gets to have their opinions.

So, in terms of a place to set up a discussion about (or of, I don't 
remember the wording) women in code4lib or even just women and code, the 
places I'm aware of that might work are:

Google+
Google Groups
an email list (not my favorite)
IRC

However, I'm probably the least knowledgeable of most people here about 
social software since I mostly don't participate. So I'm asking for 
suggestions.

kc

On 12/7/12 10:03 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> There being no rules about who can form a group does not mean there are no opinions about it, or that nobody should share an opinion.  Just the opposite, the community defines itself by sharing opinions and discussing them, not by rules. There is no contradiction between thinking something is a bad idea and thinking it is not prohibited by any rules, I am surprised to find you astonished by it.
>
> Yes, you don't need permission, you can just do it. But people will have opinions about what you do, and they'll share them.  That's how a community functions, no?   People are encouraged to float their ideas by the community and get community feedback and take that feedback into account -- but taking it into account doesn't mean you "have to" refrain from doing something if some people don't like it (especially when other people do), you can make your own decision.
>
> I'm not even going to talk about the particular plan here, because I think this general point is much more important.
>
> The idea that "rules" are the only thing that can or should guide's one course of action is absolutely antithetical to a well-functioning community, online or offline.  Thinking that either there should be a rule against something, or else nobody should resist or express opposition to anything that lacks a rule against it -- is a recipe for stultifying beuarocracy, not community.
> ________________________________________
> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
>
> Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group.
> Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create
> that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away
> like so many start-up groups.
>
> I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part
> of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups.
> I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this
> kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want
> something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask
> permission. So, do it.
>
> I think the only open question is: where? e.g. what platform?
>
> kc
>
> On 12/7/12 9:25 AM, Salazar, Christina wrote:
>> Hi Bohyun,
>>
>> Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group.
>>
>> I found the terminology "separate but equal" (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l.
>>
>> If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone.
>>
>> If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us.
>>
>> Christina Salazar
>> Systems Librarian
>> John Spoor Broome Library
>> California State University, Channel Islands
>> 805/437-3198
>>
>> p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim
>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program.
>>
>> But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...).
>>
>> I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having  a learning group instead?  Personally, I don't see why we can have both code4libwomen and code4liblearn inside code4lib if there are enough people who think that these would make code4lib more useful to them and if this makes code4lib serve more diverse interests of their members.
>>
>> So I am looking forward to hearing form other women in c4l on this! :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ~Bohyun
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager