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?
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
> 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! :)
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net