Before addressing your suggestion I first wish to correct a few errors
in your post.
The creation of ComDev was not made at the barcamp session you refer to.
It was created prior to that meeting as a result of discussion through
the normal ASF mailing lists and a subsequent Board Resolution.
The decision to roll women@ into ComDev was not "agreed" (as you put it)
at the barcamp session either. It was a suggestion from the board when
the ComDev resolution was passed.
On Oct 28th 2009 I made the women@ list aware of the opportunity to
revitalize the women@ objectives through comdev [1]. Specifically I said
"The wo...@a.o list has not really gone anywhere, but maybe this is
another chance to look at the lack of female representation here at the
ASF." This resulted in a few of the original women@ participants joining
the comdev list where rolling women@ into comdev has been discussed on a
few occasions.
The actual decision to roll women@ into comdev is the subject of a vote
currently underway on comdev and this list was notified of the vote [2]
to ensure full transparency.
OK, so that's the history of how we got here. No to look at your concerns.
You argue that a better solution would be to leave women@ open merely
suggesting that comdev may be an appropriate alternative. I would
counter that this only serves to split any effort that might emerge.
Long history here at the ASF has shown that splitting communities along
artificial lines results in weaker communities.
However, given that our communities do not have adequate representation
from women perhaps this is an exceptional case. Please forgive me while
I ask a few basic questions.
Why would someone post to women@ but not to comdev? That is, what does
women@ provide that comdev does not (or vice-versa)?
Why haven't these people been posting to wo...@?
If we do bring women@ into comdev what can comdev do to address these
problems?
How can comdev attract sufficiently motivated and time rich volunteers
to make this happen?
Forgive me for asking these questions. They are genuine questions, I am
concerned that I'm missing an important point here.
Ross
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200910.mbox/browser
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/201007.mbox/browser
On 18/07/2010 22:39, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
Hi Ross,
Thanks for replying to the women@ list and cc-ing to others as appropriate
The matter at hand is of course one of decision-making process, albeit with
regards to women@ on this occasion, and it is the process that concerns me,
given that it may not be condusive to community development in its fullest
sense and may, at best, turn out to engender mediocracy as if it were
meritocracy in the longer term.
Having participated in face-to-face discussions on topic, including the
meeting last November when the formation of ComDev together with the idea of
closing the women@ list was "agreed", my recollection is of the lady seated
next to me, albeit not an apache member as yet afaik, commenting on her
utter disbelief at what had just taken place by way of passing for
"consensus" on the matter.
Personally think that it will be interesting to try rolling women@
into d...@whilst keeping wo...@open on the off chance that it doesn't
really. If an autoresponder could be
set up to introduce dev@ as an alternative place to post, without it being
compulsory to do so, then we could keep a count of how many of those
intending to post to women@ take up the offer of posting to dev@ instead,
without being compelled to do so. Compelling any single person, let alone a
group, to do anything other than what they are and /or have been trying to
do in all good faith can be painful.
But then, in this day an age, dare our generation be the ones to try setting
any example otherwise? Does anyone care enough here?
Best, A
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ross Gardler<rgard...@apache.org> wrote:
Anjana,
The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work
around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if
someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set
up.
This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've not
seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you
raise.
I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer:
Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway.
The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all
discussion, as have a number of members of that list.
Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business from
that list will move here.
An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the original
vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this).
By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be
officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive
list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable us
to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can
create a wo...@community.a.o as appropriate.
Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going to
vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
Ross
Sent from my mobile device.
On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee<
a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
was
responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-)
but
no harm done.
Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of
the
vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear,
and
so is potentially harmful.
In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something
else.
In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll wo...@into
dev@ ?
Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder
to
direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together
with
an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to d...@instead,
without it being compulsory to do so?
And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they
are
being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being
done?
Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of
these
discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been
principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
Hope this helps, A
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201007.mbox/browser
