 |
 |
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. Kevin 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. > > kc > > > 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: >>> >>> Roy, >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> kc >>> * 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]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> Roy >>> >>> > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet