 |
 |
I believe the problem is that you somehow read that initial post proposing the IRC group as saying it would be exclusively for women. As far as I can tell, no one else read it that way. If that is your only concern, I believe you can be reassured. Steve McDonald [log in to unmask] > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > MJ Ray > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:28 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea > > Tim Donohue <[log in to unmask]> > > However, I think some/many are taking offense to the implication that > > 'libtechwomen' is discriminatory or prejudice against men or minority > > groups just because its name includes "women". [...] To call a group > > discriminatory just because they initially planned to concentrate on > > specific gender issues is just wrong (in my opinion). > > Whoa! Hang on a minute! I don't think the name is great and I feel that we > could do better for a first support group, but I'm not objecting to either of > those. > > It's not "just because" either of those and it's rather frustrating if anyone still > thinks it is. (Similarly in the other email from Steve, I never meant to suggest > the "completely spurious" thing.) My objection arose because the opening > post in this thread suggested it would be discriminatory: > https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi- > bin/wa?A2=ind1212&L=CODE4LIB&F=&S=&P=166649 > described it as a "group for just women". > > There are later emails which claim otherwise. twitter.com/libtechwomen and > http://libtechwomen.tumblr.com/ don't say either way, as far as I can see (if > you'll excuse the pun). I don't really want to hop on IRC and ask because of > past bad experiences with a previous group. > > Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have no > platform in code4lib? And is it sure that libtechwomen is not the > aforementioned women-only group? > > Thanks > -- > MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]> > Setchey, Norfolk, England