Anjana,
Thanks for your comments.
A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most
recent email being Sept 14th 2007.
The fact is that people are not looking for a list called "women@".
Nevertheless the reasons that the list was originally created are still
valid.
The community development project was created last year. In our original
resolution we had not proposed taking the women@ "activity". Instead we
are focussing on making it easier for people in general rather than on
the issues facing a specific group. The board requested that we take
ownership of the women@ work too. Since women@ has always been "just a
list" it has had no official role in the foundation. Bringing the
activity into ComDev provides a vehicle through which more action can be
taken if there are people willing and able to undertake such action.
Rolling the women@ list into the d...@community.a.o list need not be a
permanent solution. If there is sufficient momentum behind the women@
objectives then we could, at some point in the future, create
wo...@community.apache.org - however, at this point in time there is no
need for such a list as demonstrated by the lack of activity on the
existing women@ list [2].
Today, if you search for "women" on the apache website the first hit is
the women section of the wiki [1]. By bringing women@ list (and
objectives) under the ComDev banner we are potentially providing a much
more "official" and "recognisable" home for women@ activities.
It is my hope that we can take advantage of the fact that the Community
Development team consists of approximately 50% men and women.
Ross
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/Women/
[2]
http://markmail.org/search/women+list:org.apache.women+order:date-backward
On 16/07/2010 16:15, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
-1 (unbinding)
because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any
vote,
so to speak
in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
between the options of:
(a) closing women@ and
(b) setting up an autoresponder
agreeing to option (a) would mean that someone looking for the keyword
"women@" in order to discuss an issue that he/she/they may initially feel
fits into such a category, may not know to search for a "dev@"
possibility
instead, and so remain silence(d)
I plan to post to women@ indicating that we are closing the list and
d...@community welcomes their posts.
on the other hand, agreeing to option (b) could help mitigate this
circumstance
Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
activity has moved to d...@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
regards,
-jean
but as the vote is currently construed, it is not possible to distinguish
between options (a) and (b), and so a simple vote count at the end of
this
vote may miss the point
personally, would like to keep a place for women@ if only for such
aesthetic
redirection for the time being at least ...
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
[X ] +1 let's dot it
-Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)
--
rgard...@apache.org
@rgardler
