And it's not like there is some limitation to the number of rooms you
can hang out in. Someone could hang out in #code4lib and
#code4lib-something-else just as easily (perhaps participating in
different ways in the different spaces). I wouldn't see a second room
as pulling away participants from the first. Two IRC spaces are
different than two mailing lists, imho.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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 intent.
>> 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.
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet