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
women-only.

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)