LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  December 2012

CODE4LIB December 2012

Subject:

Re: Gender Survey Summary and Results

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:47:49 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212&L=CODE4LIB&D=0&F=P&P=133536&F=
lists.clir.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
59794
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:TGY5UEONJX4UA3TTHOA44I2LM44WBWLV
<urn:uuid:69e69e73-5f2e-4534-a4b6-5dfbc3b22893>
2021-01-27T16:59:11Z
66.175.211.245
text/html
sha1:JIGEGBMAONT4K7IP7HECSCLWJSNLON2K
<urn:uuid:c31e565a-b5bf-40da-ba8c-f3181da0b8ea>
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212&L=CODE4LIB&D=0&F=P&P=133536&F=
response
<urn:uuid:26b0d176-7847-455b-951c-68a5a14ad84b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-52.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/