When you say someone referred to "a group just for women", did you mean
when Bohyun Kim said "interests in a space for women"?
Because if you did, then you should not have used quotes, since you were
not quoting. If that language you don't like came from somewhere else,
then please be more specific, because I didn't see it at the start of this
thread that I'm emailing on.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:45 PM, MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> > [...] 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. [...]
> Well, will code4lib tolerate that discrimination?
> Is the discriminatory language used in the start of this thread
> appropriate for code4lib?
> The thread opener does not describe an equality campaign. It
> described "a group for just women" and seemed to claim
> "gender-specific issues won't be addressed" by any group other than
> It feels like code4lib may be giving up and that the anti-harrassment
> policy is junk before it's given a reasonable go.
> Of course, setting up discriminatory spaces isn't harassment directly,
> so is on the fringe of the anti-harrassment policy. Is there a
> code4lib equality policy? Could we agree that everyone should able to
> use all of code4lib "without distinction[...] such as race, colour,
> sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
> social origin, property, birth or other status"? (Quote from UDHR)