Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> On 12/18/2012 12:27 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have
> > no platform in code4lib?
> If what you mean is if everyone agrees with you that a group created for 
> women in tech is bad, then, no, pretty much nobody else here agrees with 
> you.

Of course that's not what I mean!  I mean that if a group were
women-only, men-only, white-only, senior-only or
whatever-axis-you-like-only, then we feel it should be given no
platform in anything code4lib.

> I am not sure if I'd call such a group "deliberately discriminatory", 

Me neither, as previously mentioned... I'm glad to see more
reassurance and hope that something will appear on libwomentech.tumblr.

> nor am I sure what qualifies as "platform in code4lib", but for what 

A platform is any office, speaking slot, endorsement or so on.  It's
quite easy to find with a web search, but I'll assume Jonathan isn't
trolling and try to summarise: no platform policies are a tool used by
some organisations to exclude those acting against equality of
opportunity.  Here's one, which applied to a past employer of mine:

    "In pursuance of these aims any individuals or members of
    organisation or groups known to hold racist or fascist views will
    not be allowed to stand for election to any NUS office, or attend,
    speak or otherwise participate in NUS conferences, meetings or any
    other NUS events, and NEC members will not share a public platform
    with an individual or member of a organisation or group known to
    hold racist or fascist views."

[NUS = National Union of Students, NEC = National Executive Committee]

> you're really getting at, no, there is no clarity there, pretty much 
> nobody else agrees with you there.

I really hope that's not the case, that such groups aren't welcomed.

Hope that clarifies,
MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]>
Setchey, Norfolk, England