I'm fine with naming it code4lib-learning or whatever. It must be clear
that it is an area for testing, hanging out, learning (we could even
schedule learning times to meet there -- following Esme's suggestion of
having a time at Chicago, and could include folks who aren't at c4l13).
And, as you say, anyone can create any channel they want, and if some
folks want a channel, there's no reason why they can't have one. You
know, it might even turn out that there's room for more than one c4l
channel, based on interests and activities. I honestly don't care if it
turns out that men are predominantly in one and women are predominantly
in the other. The point is that people should gather in the space that
is most useful to them. My interest is in making sure that the
under-represented women on the list learn enough about the available
tools to decide what works for them. If it turns out not to be useful it
will fade away as all unused social spaces do.
On 12/5/12 2:49 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> That makes sense, but I predict that if you create such a channel,
> even if the intention is for training (in recognition that many women
> are more comfortable training in a single gender environment, as
> kcoyle says) -- people (mainly women people) will end up 'hanging out'
> in there instead of in #code4lib, resulting in fewer women hanging out
> in #code4lib.
> Which I guess you could think is a fine thing, or could think is an
> unfortunate thing. I agree with royt that it would be an unfortunate
> thing, for a bunch of different reasons.
> Of course, like most any other project or venue of code4lib, we don't
> all need to agree on this, and no approval needs to be had -- if
> someone wants to create an IRC channel for 'code4lib women' or
> something, they can do so on freenode.
> But I agree with royt it'd be unfortunate. If the intent really is
> just for 'training', then maybe call it #code4lib_learning_irc or
> something, to try and reduce the chances of it vacuuming women's
> participation out of main #code4lib, even if that wasn't the original
> On 12/5/2012 4:45 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> It wasn't for safety -- it was for training. Some of us haven't spent
>> much time on IRC -- I never know what to do when I get there -- can't
>> remember commands, even with a decent GUI. So I was trying to think of
>> places (e.g. Github, IRC) where we'd like to have more women
>> participating and how we could give them a chance to learn.* Lots of
>> people are afraid of making mistakes in front of others, and we know
>> that women/girls take fewer chances in mixed classrooms. Once they get
>> adept at the environment they can participate in the group list with
>> more confidence. Training, mentoring -- it all blends together.
>> In fact, I'm thinking that at c4l we could put up some big pieces of
>> paper (I love the giant post-it paper) and have people make lists of
>> their favorite tools, hangouts, etc. Then we could use those lists as
>> ways to figure out what people need to learn to feel more like "part of
>> the community" and to feel more confident about participating.
>> * Look at the list of edits on the anti-harassment policy -- not many
>> women there. I suspect it's unfamiliarity with Git. If we're going to
>> use a tool as a community, then I want more women to be familiar with
>> it. If someone else wants to train men or a coed group, that's fine.
>> On 12/5/12 1:35 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Rosalyn Metz <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Karen had the idea of creating a women Code4Lib IRC channel, maybe
>>>> that can
>>>> be a place to start.
>>> I understand the motivation to create a "safe space" for women, but
>>> please let's not do this. "Separate but equal" has never been shown to
>>> make progress toward equality, and I doubt this situation would be any
>>> different. I believe it would instead make things worse, by
>>> balkanizing the community rather than encouraging good behavior within
>>> a unified group. In other words, the solution will never be reached
>>> without active participation by men.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net