RE: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Brooks R. Robinson]

Can't...  help...  myself...

| -Original Message-
| From: Jonathan Walther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:31 PM
| To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
| Subject: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
|
|
| On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:58:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
| >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:11:06PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
| >> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
| >> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such.  He was
| >> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
| >> response to counter with.  His silence implies he recognizes I am
| >> correct.
| >
| >Moo.
|
| It's spelt "Mu".
|
| Jonathan

debian:~# apt-get moo
 (__)
 (oo)
   /--\/
  / |||
 *  /\---/\
~~   ~~
"Have you mooed today?"...
debian:~# apt-get mu
E: Invalid operation mu
debian:~#











|
| --
| Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
| Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
| Website: http://reactor-core.org
|

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[D. Starner]

> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such.  He was
> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
> response to counter with.  His silence implies he recognizes I am
> correct.

He hasn't been silent. But at some point, when you realize that
your opponent is working from a different set of basic beliefs
about the nature of the universe, it's pointless to continue the
arguments. The only way to change your mind, or anyone agreeing
with you, on this subject is to change your beliefs about God 
or his message, and that's a long, tedious, usually futile and 
above all off-topic argument.

Even in court, there's a point in time when you sit down, shut up,
and let the judge and/or jury take over.

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:58:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:11:06PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such.  He was
"silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
response to counter with.  His silence implies he recognizes I am
correct.


Moo.


It's spelt "Mu".

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:11:06PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such.  He was
> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
> response to counter with.  His silence implies he recognizes I am
> correct.

Moo.

There, you're incorrect.


Michael

-- 
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Lukas Geyer]

Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such.  He was
> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
> response to counter with.  His silence implies he recognizes I am
> correct.

Sorry to weigh in again, but this is just too tempting... You way
overestimate yourself, the silence of many people here just means that
they have better things to do with their time than arguing with
you. But if you firmly believe in what you write and if it helps you
to have a happier life, then so be it, we all think you are right,
especially all those who write "*PLONK*", the sign of ultimate
agreement. Delusions can be so comforting...

Lukas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:


On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:37:47AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

EOT.  *plonk*


I guess that means you concede my point.  Thanks for reading.


*ROTLF* No, it means that _you_ concede the point, except that you don't
even realize it.


To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such.  He was
"silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
response to counter with.  His silence implies he recognizes I am
correct.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> It's called "reductio ad absurdum". [...] it's a classic and
> fairly graphic proof method.

Thanks for clarifying. (I'm rather bad at recognizing rhetorics in English.)

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:37:47AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>>EOT.  *plonk*
> 
> I guess that means you concede my point.  Thanks for reading.
> 
*ROTLF* No, it means that _you_ concede the point, except that you don't
even realize it.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> The only problem is people having thin skins.  To function in ANY group
> setting, one needs a thick skin, and a vigorous will to defend oneself.

Sorry, but I disagree, vigorously in fact.

My experience says that there are enough groups out there where personal
attacks simply aren't tolerated.

I'm not going to call anybody names because their argument and/or
their code sucks. I'm not even going to call the argument / code itself
names (i.e., "your code sucks") because (a) just mentioning the specific
problems I have with it generally gets my point across MUCH better anyway,
and (b) some people don't see the difference between the two and react
with counterattacks. Examples abound.  :-/

Mind you, I'm not saying that I'm a 100% Nice Guy. I am saying, though,
that I'd much prefer being told off if/when I slip into disparaging
language myself, than to deal with an environment where that's the group
standard.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:37:47AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

EOT.  *plonk*


I guess that means you concede my point.  Thanks for reading.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matt Zimmerman]

EOT.  *plonk*

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:26:54AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

I don't see the point of your ongoing uterine fixation in this discussion.
It doesn't seem to support your argument.  "Women bear children, and men do
not, and therefore I am paying them a favour in treating them as
intellectually and physically inferior based on their sex.  QED."?


You are assuming, but you fail to demonstrate, that I argue for
inferiority of women.  As a smear this is quite effective, but
unfortunately for you, it lacks truth.

I advocate treating women with respect, dignity, and civil manners.  You
equate this with demonic political incorrectness.  I feel sorry for your
female kinfolk.  They must love you as much as you love them.


You seem to be the inexperienced one; you've never had to comfort a
grieving mother who had a miscarriage after experiencing a level of
stress and physical activity that would have bothered no man.  


As if on cue, you've gone from speaking for all women to speaking for
all men.


Tell me how many men have lost living infants because they had to do
some intense physical activity, or were under stress at work, and I'll
take it back.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:03:42AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:38:31AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >>To the contrary, it is equalitarians that treat people inhumanely;
> >>expecting too much of some, and denigrating the abilities of others.  Do
> >>you expect a man to bear children?  Why do you expect women to accept
> >>the same treatment that men give to each other, when they are the ones
> >>who bear the seed of our future generations during it's most vulnerable
> >>state?
> >
> >This is hopeless nonsense, and clearly comes from someone who has never had
> >to face prejudice themselves.
> 
> Let me guess, you also believe in fairy tales such as the one that the
> earth is over-populated, and that infants in the womb are neither human
> nor essential to our future?

I don't see the point of your ongoing uterine fixation in this discussion.
It doesn't seem to support your argument.  "Women bear children, and men do
not, and therefore I am paying them a favour in treating them as
intellectually and physically inferior based on their sex.  QED."?

> You seem to be the inexperienced one; you've never had to comfort a
> grieving mother who had a miscarriage after experiencing a level of stress
> and physical activity that would have bothered no man.  

As if on cue, you've gone from speaking for all women to speaking for all
men.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:38:31AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
To the contrary, it is equalitarians that treat people inhumanely;
expecting too much of some, and denigrating the abilities of others.  Do
you expect a man to bear children?  Why do you expect women to accept
the same treatment that men give to each other, when they are the ones
who bear the seed of our future generations during it's most vulnerable
state?


This is hopeless nonsense, and clearly comes from someone who has never had
to face prejudice themselves.


Let me guess, you also believe in fairy tales such as the one that the
earth is over-populated, and that infants in the womb are neither human
nor essential to our future?

You seem to be the inexperienced one; you've never had to comfort a
grieving mother who had a miscarriage after experiencing a level of
stress and physical activity that would have bothered no man.  


Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:14:48AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >>Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
> >>expectation than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for
> >>instance, would not think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle,
> >>but would instantly offer such assistance to a lady.
> >
> >In other words, your described "gentlemen" treat women as inferior
> >people.
> 
> To the contrary, it is equalitarians that treat people inhumanely;
> expecting too much of some, and denigrating the abilities of others.  Do
> you expect a man to bear children?  Why do you expect women to accept
> the same treatment that men give to each other, when they are the ones
> who bear the seed of our future generations during it's most vulnerable
> state?

This is hopeless nonsense, and clearly comes from someone who has never had
to face prejudice themselves.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Benj. Mako Hill]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:43:59PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> I'd take a bullet for my wife, my mother, my sisters, but never for
> a feminist.

Just in case there is a misunderstanding here, this is what dict-wn
has to say about feminism:

  feminist
adj : of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women;

If there's no misunderstanding, I apologize for feeding the trolls.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:54AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:

Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
expectation than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for
instance, would not think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle,
but would instantly offer such assistance to a lady.


I know it has not escaped your notice, since you mentioned it earlier,
that while some women enjoy the "perks" of your way of thinking, others
find it insulting.  I imagine you have heard the saying, "A gentleman
never wounds unintentionally."


You seem to have overlooked the last word of that sentence,
"unintentionally".  Gentlemen do wound intentionally when necessary.
Their role is to uphold the orderliness and civility of society.  They
are polite by preference, but devastating when need be.


Obvious corollary: to qualify as a "gentleman", you ought to be able to
tell the difference between those two types of women, and respond
accordingly.


And I did respond; perhaps you didn't see it.  It is obvious that
Erinn/helix wants the perks of being one of the boys, but wants to be
treated like a lady too.  This is an impossibility, so she has to make
up her mind which one she prefers.  Either she puts up with the
"harassment" as part of being one of the boys, or we all act like
gentlemen, acknowledging her true desire, and treat her like a lady
despite her protests that she doesn't want to be treated like one.

Take your pick; either choice is fine with me.


That you seem completely unable to do so makes clear, if it wasn't
already, your own hypocrisy and pompousness.


Do you have a dictionary?  I'm not quite sure what those big words mean.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain them, and how you determine when
they apply to someone.

Cheerio!

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:10:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
> >> I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
> > 
> > No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> > arguments. It is logically impossible for you to disprove this,
> > because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal logic,
> > you've allowed a falsehood to be introduced, so it is impossible to
> > draw any conclusions within the current situation).
> 
> Say, Andrew, are you playing Devil's Advocate here, or are you just plain
> wrong?
> 
> Being a gerbil _is_, if not the falsehood, then the hypothesis to be
> proven/disproven. Introducing that falsehood into the argument as an
> axiom is not the fault of the non-Gerbil person, but the mistake
> (deliberate or otherwise) of the perope accusing him to be one.

It's called "reductio ad absurdum". Demonstrating that a given
statement allows you to introduce an absurdity (any falsehood will do,
but it's best to pick something that's obviously wrong) into an
unbounded system proves the statement to be false; it's a classic and
fairly graphic proof method.

And yes, allowing this statement to be introduced as an axiom is
broken, and that was the whole point. The proposed rule allows it to
be introduced.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Peter Samuelson]

[Jonathan Walther]
> Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
> expectation than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for
> instance, would not think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle,
> but would instantly offer such assistance to a lady.

I know it has not escaped your notice, since you mentioned it earlier,
that while some women enjoy the "perks" of your way of thinking, others
find it insulting.  I imagine you have heard the saying, "A gentleman
never wounds unintentionally."  Obvious corollary: to qualify as a
"gentleman", you ought to be able to tell the difference between those
two types of women, and respond accordingly.  (I highly suspect that
most prospective Debian developers would fall into the second category,
but that's not my point.)

That you seem completely unable to do so makes clear, if it wasn't
already, your own hypocrisy and pompousness.

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Martin Schulze]

Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >... towards *everybody*, not just towards women.
> >
> >Which is exactly her point.
> 
> Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less expectation
> than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for instance, would not
> think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle, but would instantly offer
> such assistance to a lady.
> 
> So what was her "point" again?

That she doesn't want to be treated special in a tech channel just because
she has a vagina.  But you're certainly too dumb and boneheaded to recognise
that.  Again, you don't get it.

Joey

-- 
Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
expectation than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for
instance, would not think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle,
but would instantly offer such assistance to a lady.


In other words, your described "gentlemen" treat women as inferior
people.


To the contrary, it is equalitarians that treat people inhumanely;
expecting too much of some, and denigrating the abilities of others.  Do
you expect a man to bear children?  Why do you expect women to accept
the same treatment that men give to each other, when they are the ones
who bear the seed of our future generations during it's most vulnerable
state?

Equality before the law is an ancient Saxon/Gothic/Scythian principle,
but even our traditional laws enshrined the differences between men and
women.  Marxist equalitarianism is a different beast, hurting everyone
by trying to force men and women into a mould that fits neither.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less expectation
> than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for instance, would not
> think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle, but would instantly offer
> such assistance to a lady.

In other words, your described "gentlemen" treat women as inferior people.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:04:58AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

People cannot usefully participate in a debate unless they grow a
skin, or while they are emotionally attached to an argument.


True, assuming ...


Providing
crutches for them will only make things worse.


... that it's an argument about the quality of the code and not about the
inherent inability of the author to write better code, have better ideas,
etc.

Quite a lot of people don't see any particular distinction betwen the two.
Your argument seems to show that you don't either.

That's part of the problem.


The only problem is people having thin skins.  To function in ANY group
setting, one needs a thick skin, and a vigorous will to defend oneself.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:19:02AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. 


Why not?  There are standards of civility, and those standards include
acting like a gentleman.


... towards *everybody*, not just towards women.

Which is exactly her point.


Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less expectation
than they do their fellow men.  A gentleman, for instance, would not
think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle, but would instantly offer
such assistance to a lady.

So what was her "point" again?

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:

>>1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. 
> 
> Why not?  There are standards of civility, and those standards include
> acting like a gentleman.

... towards *everybody*, not just towards women.

Which is exactly her point.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:

>> I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
> 
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments. It is logically impossible for you to disprove this,
> because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal logic,
> you've allowed a falsehood to be introduced, so it is impossible to
> draw any conclusions within the current situation).

Say, Andrew, are you playing Devil's Advocate here, or are you just plain
wrong?

Being a gerbil _is_, if not the falsehood, then the hypothesis to be
proven/disproven. Introducing that falsehood into the argument as an
axiom is not the fault of the non-Gerbil person, but the mistake
(deliberate or otherwise) of the perope accusing him to be one.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:39:17PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> With our underlying culture, I'm not sure if any attempts to change us will
>> truly ever succeed in making us the caring, sharing, non-confrontational
>> group that will make every person happy to work with us.

> I certainly won't tolerate it. It's fundamentally incompatible with
> getting any useful work done. 

There's a rather large difference between saying "your code has serious
problems, fix it and come back", and saying "you're a stupid git who can't
code, go away". Including the stereotype most (in)appropriate for the
person in question is even worse.

> People cannot usefully participate in a debate unless they grow a
> skin, or while they are emotionally attached to an argument.

True, assuming ...

> Providing
> crutches for them will only make things worse.

... that it's an argument about the quality of the code and not about the
inherent inability of the author to write better code, have better ideas,
etc.

Quite a lot of people don't see any particular distinction betwen the two.
Your argument seems to show that you don't either.

That's part of the problem.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Craig Sanders wrote:

> ditto for meek vs non-meek people.  it is wrong to expect or demand that
> non-meek people behave timidly and fearfully just to cater to the needs of the
> meek.

Did anybody actually ask for that? I don't recall any mails to that
effect.

On the other hand? is it wrong to ask (or tell, for that matter) people to
please tone down their overbearing and aggressive remarks on the lists,
#debian, whatever, so that we don't scare away the 'meek' people?

IMHO: No!

I'm not a particularly 'meek' person myself, but I still think we could do
with some more collective self-restraint here. It'd improve some things
besides our men/women ratio.  :-/

-- 
Matthias Urlichs

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-09 22:48:49 + Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:10:28PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

Certainly, the kind of harrassment documented here:
http://www.p12n.org/misc/sexism/
is not something that I would consider acceptable


I am glad you posted those logs.  Now I see I was right, this whole
thing is blown way out of proportion.


Finally read these. Actually, there's very little there. I expect 
there's more, for a channel the size of #debian.


exhibit_a - Looks like sarcasm to me, given the HOWTO link paste early 
on. Hard to tell from a log. It wouldn't seem as sexist without the 
editorialising in the log IMO.


exhibit_b - Hard to tell about this, as they're all fairly short 
snips. Lots of apparent sexism, including by helix, which I hope only 
looks like that because of the editing.


exhibit_c - Yep, rehm is wrong, although not as soon as some think 
(I've seen straight men make comments about sleeping with men on IRC), 
but wtf does it turn into a trolling match at one point? If he's so 
damn offensive, why invite him to continue? niwton also seems sexist.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:10:28PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

Certainly, the kind of harrassment documented here:

http://www.p12n.org/misc/sexism/

is not something that I would consider acceptable


I am glad you posted those logs.  Now I see I was right, this whole
thing is blown way out of proportion.  Many horny geeks bought heavily
into the whole equality thing, so they feel like they are committing a
personal sin if more women don't feel interested in their project.

The only somewhat offensive log was the last one, and even that did not
merit banning.  rehm seemed like a person who hadn't had lessons in
etiquette.  For that matter, mary and helix also seemed to lack
etiquette.

The main "offense" here is that the females were being treated as one of
the boys, and they didn't like it.  But they say they don't want to be
treated like females either.

I suggest all men do what I do, and believe a womans actions more than
her words.  Being civil and gentlemanly really works.  I highly
recommend it.  Penalizing men for the bad behavior of females is not
fair or just.

Every geek should read, memorize, and apply Emily Post's Guide to
Etiquette.  You'll have beautiful women falling all over themselves to
be with you.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[David B Harris]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:14:20 +
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 12:03]:
> > If it is the flirtation that is the problem, and the problems do not
> > go beyond that to the extend of persistent harassment, then the
> > solution is simple; let Erinn bring more of her female friends to
> > the channel to "spread the load".
> 
> The channel is called #debian for a reason; it's not called
> #debian-flirt or #horny-debian-geeks.  #debian is about user questions
> and communication related to Debian; if you want to flirt, don't do it
> on #debian because you're off-topic.

Though, of course, #debian is part of a community, and a community in
its own right. "off-topic" is a bat used to beat the heads of trolls or
people being deliberately offensive - a certain amount of off-topic
bantering and discussion is required for the good function of any
community.

-- 
 Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
   After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:03:36PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:46:13AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >>>Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> >2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
> >>[...]
> >>Although I don't flirt with every woman I meet, I do flirt with the
> >>women who interest me. Which has nothing to do with Erinns request that
> >>no male ever flirt with a female on the #debian channel.
> >
> >Erinn made no such request; read your own quote.
> 
> You quoted me out of context; the paragraph following said that in an
> environment with 600 males and 5 females, it is inevitable that at
> least 1 male at any given time will be desire to flirt with a female who
> shows an interest in Debian.

They might have desires to do all sorts of things, but in social situations,
it is understood that it is often a bad idea to give in to every impulsive
desire.

> If it is the flirtation that is the problem

My interpretation, which I thought was rather clear from the statement and
its context, was that the problem was not flirtation in general, but with
the associated circumstances and reasoning.  My personal opinion is that
project-related matters should be handled with a certain level of decorum
which does not include flirting with someone in an IRC channel simply
because one notices that they are of the appropriate sex.

Certainly, the kind of harrassment documented here:

http://www.p12n.org/misc/sexism/

is not something that I would consider acceptable, and would hope not to see
this kind of behaviour in a Debian-related forum in which I participate.  If
I did, I would not be inclined to let it pass without comment.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:14:08AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:

Perhaps they were not developers but the channel is a Debian resource.
Most people do not meet the developers before they consider becoming
one, or, in fact, when they first begin using Debian. It's an
off-putting environment, and not just for women.


Have things changed that much since I joined?  Before I became a Debian
developer, the majority of my contact was with other Debian developers.
Mailing lists are where the real activity is at; any prospective
developer should at least join the debian-devel mailing list for a
while.  If someone is put off from joining by some stuff happening on an
IRC channel inhabited by non-developers, it sounds like they aren't very
serious anyway.

>1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. 
Why not?  There are standards of civility, and those standards include

acting like a gentleman.


Acting like a gentleman is an antiquated notion, much like "acting like
a lady."


Having sex in the missionary position is also an antiquated notion, yet
many people still enjoy it today.  Antiquity is not the same as
obsolescence, and those who forget the lessons of history will one day
have to relearn them, to their cost.  Gentlemanly behavior acted as a
protection to women.  If you freely give up such protection, that is
your decision, but you must be willing to deal with the consequences.

I'd take a bullet for my wife, my mother, my sisters, but never for a
feminist.


I believe you misunderstood the statement. You don't have to flirt with
someone just because she has a vagina.


Yes, but 90% of men won't flirt with someone unless they HAVE a vagina.


I don't want special treatment - I'm sorry if you think these three
things are classified as special.


Actually, it sounds like you HAVEN'T been getting special treatment, and
that you don't like it.  That only leaves the alternative of being given
special treatment; which I support and endorse.  There is nothing weak,
archaic, or wrong about being manly.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 12:03]:
> If it is the flirtation that is the problem, and the problems do not
> go beyond that to the extend of persistent harassment, then the
> solution is simple; let Erinn bring more of her female friends to
> the channel to "spread the load".

The channel is called #debian for a reason; it's not called
#debian-flirt or #horny-debian-geeks.  #debian is about user questions
and communication related to Debian; if you want to flirt, don't do it
on #debian because you're off-topic.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:46:13AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:


On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
>>>2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
[...]
Although I don't flirt with every woman I meet, I do flirt with the
women who interest me. Which has nothing to do with Erinns request that
no male ever flirt with a female on the #debian channel.


Erinn made no such request; read your own quote.


You quoted me out of context; the paragraph following said that in an
environment with 600 males and 5 females, it is inevitable that at
least 1 male at any given time will be desire to flirt with a female who
shows an interest in Debian.

If it is the flirtation that is the problem, and the problems do not go
beyond that to the extend of persistent harassment, then the solution is
simple; let Erinn bring more of her female friends to the channel to
"spread the load".

And if that is not agreeable to her, she still has /ignore at her
disposal.

I am willing to be a gentleman, but I'm less willing to leap to the
defense of those who are consider the feminine virtues outdated.  I
imagine she would say that the missionary position has no role in modern
society either, because it is of such great antiquity.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:46:13AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> >>>2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
> [...]
> Although I don't flirt with every woman I meet, I do flirt with the
> women who interest me. Which has nothing to do with Erinns request that
> no male ever flirt with a female on the #debian channel.

Erinn made no such request; read your own quote.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Erinn Clark]

One time on Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:24:08AM -0800 this person named Jonathan 
Walther wrote:
> I don't believe the treatment you receive in channel #debian is
> representative of how women are treated in the project itself, by actual
> developers.  The Debian developement team, including myself, has always
> bent over backward to be inclusive and polite to females.

Perhaps they were not developers but the channel is a Debian resource.
Most people do not meet the developers before they consider becoming
one, or, in fact, when they first begin using Debian. It's an
off-putting environment, and not just for women.

> Should we then have special standards for women?  That is, men should
> not flame, but women can be rude if they feel like it?  I would be ok
> with such a standard, as long as it is explicitly stated.

I don't believe you were present during the #debian-devel discussion.
That was directed at people who thought I was overreacting or that I
shouldn't have used foul language, etc. I never said men couldn't be
rude.

> >1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. 
> Why not?  There are standards of civility, and those standards include
> acting like a gentleman.

Acting like a gentleman is an antiquated notion, much like "acting like
a lady." However, that is another debate, so I won't discuss any
follow-ups you may include to this statement. Just know that we
disagree.

> >2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
> Impossible.  More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief
> criteria for choosing who they flirt with.  Should Debian now exclude
> all heterosexual men?

I believe you misunderstood the statement. You don't have to flirt with
someone just because she has a vagina.

> Does that happen very often?  Are you certain the insults are because
> you are female, as opposed to other reasons, such as a conflict between
> female behaviors and male behaviors?

Well, "very often" is probably subject to interpretation. It happens too
often, IMO, but probably not "very often" to you. I have been insulted
plenty of times for reasons not relating to my gender. I'm able to tell
the difference. I don't want special treatment - I'm sorry if you think
these three things are classified as special.

Erinn
-- 
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide
http://double-helix.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:

Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:

2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.


Impossible.  More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief
criteria for choosing who they flirt with.  Should Debian now exclude
all heterosexual men?


Do you flirt with each and every woman you meet? I don't and I think
none of my male friends do either.


Although I don't flirt with every woman I meet, I do flirt with the
women who interest me. Which has nothing to do with Erinns request that
no male ever flirt with a female on the #debian channel.

In a channel with 600 males and less than 5 females, it is inevitable
that at least one male will be at a point in life where he decides it is
worthwhile to flirt with a female who is interested in Debian.

We have a choice; we can treat the females like females, or we can treat
them like males.  Erinn seems to be saying she doesn't want to be
treated like a female, but I can guarantee, if you start treating her
like a male, she won't like that either.

I recommend to everyone to learn basic civility which means treating
women with politeness, and putting them on /ignore when they act
inappropriately.

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
>>2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
>
> Impossible.  More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief
> criteria for choosing who they flirt with.  Should Debian now exclude
> all heterosexual men?

Do you flirt with each and every woman you meet? I don't and I think
none of my male friends do either.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jonathan Walther]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:

The topic being discussed was the lack of women in Debian and I felt it
proper to provide some anecdotal evidence for the treatment some of us
have received.


I don't believe the treatment you receive in channel #debian is
representative of how women are treated in the project itself, by actual
developers.  The Debian developement team, including myself, has always
bent over backward to be inclusive and polite to females.


I really don't think the onus is on me, or any other woman, to be
polite when reacting.


Should we then have special standards for women?  That is, men should
not flame, but women can be rude if they feel like it?  I would be ok
with such a standard, as long as it is explicitly stated.


A lot of women I know will not go to #debian because of the treatment


How many is "a lot"?  Three?  Four?  A dozen?  Can you name them?


If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women:

1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. 


Why not?  There are standards of civility, and those standards include
acting like a gentleman.


2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.


Impossible.  More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief
criteria for choosing who they flirt with.  Should Debian now exclude
all heterosexual men?


3. Don't insult us just because we're women.


Does that happen very often?  Are you certain the insults are because
you are female, as opposed to other reasons, such as a conflict between
female behaviors and male behaviors?

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women:
[...]
> 2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.

Thankfully, I have doogie to flirt with on IRC...

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  The greatest productive force is
Debian GNU/Linux   |  human selfishness.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
> > #debian as a Project resource.
> 
> Fair enough. Do you think that hosting it on any other irc network is
> likely to change matters, though?

Not necessarily.

[...]
>  Of course, we could wash our hands of the irc channels in the first
>  place, but having restarted visiting #debian, I can say that a lot of
>  people are being helped there as well.

*If* we can't get the instant problem wrestled under control, then I
think our next best course of action is to repudiate it.  That is, if we
actually feel it's a cesspool of misogynists that we're horrified to be
associated with.

On the other hand, some good seems to be coming out of this discussion,
in that a fire has been lit under people to be more attentive to this
particular problem.  That's good, even if it is only ephemeral --
because by the time things would have backslid, we may have succeded in
welcoming enough women to our ranks that our culture changes a little,
and the problem is permanently solved.  Or at least permanently
attenuated.

Recalling my earlier comments about gay-bashing, I seem to recollect
that people have been called on it when they did it (or something that
could be construed as it), both on our lists and IRC.  We may have
enough gay developers that we are self-policing in this respect, since
many of us can think of fellow developers we work with who are guy.
That puts a face on the target, and instead of a negative remark being
about "them", it's actually about some of "us", and we rise to our own
defense.

In summary, now is a great time for those us with geek friends who
happen to be women to recruit them to our ranks.  It looks some
much-needed consciousness-raising has taken place, so we should strike
while the iron is hot.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux   |   Biology is really chemistry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   Chemistry is really physics.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |   Physics is really math.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:16:47PM +, iain d broadfoot wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:40:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Further generalisation:
> > > 
> > > Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.
> > > 
> > > That has the benefit of being non-sexist and fitting most (all?) 
> > > discrimination.
> > 
> > It's entirely unworkable, however. At some point you have to draw the
> > line - Debian is founded upon discrimination against non-free things
> > and against broken code, and by extension, their creators and
> > users. The NM process is founded upon discrimination against the
> > stupid and the useless. The US is founded upon discrimination against
> > the poor. Etcetera.
> 
> There is a major difference between discrimination based on
> sex/gender/sexuality/religion/race/etc/etc/etc and discrimination on
> quality of code/non-free licenses/etc/etc/etc - the first set tend to be
> inherent to the person being discriminated against, while the second set
> can be changed.

Out of the ones you listed, I can think of numerous cases where I've
seen people disagree with your classification of sexuality, religion,
code, and licensing. Which is kinda the point; these things are
fiendishly difficult to pin down.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[iain d broadfoot]

* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:40:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Further generalisation:
> > 
> > Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.
> > 
> > That has the benefit of being non-sexist and fitting most (all?) 
> > discrimination.
> 
> It's entirely unworkable, however. At some point you have to draw the
> line - Debian is founded upon discrimination against non-free things
> and against broken code, and by extension, their creators and
> users. The NM process is founded upon discrimination against the
> stupid and the useless. The US is founded upon discrimination against
> the poor. Etcetera.

There is a major difference between discrimination based on
sex/gender/sexuality/religion/race/etc/etc/etc and discrimination on
quality of code/non-free licenses/etc/etc/etc - the first set tend to be
inherent to the person being discriminated against, while the second set
can be changed.

When we discriminate against poor code, we are not saying ``You are
beneath us, go away'', we are saying ``This needs fixed - go away and
make it not suck''.

The line we draw, therefore, is at the point where things change from
being implicit and unchangeable, to explicit and changeable.

cheers,
iain

-- 
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not
rightly owned if it is not shared." -- St. Augustine
#rm -rf /
http://www.geeksoc.org/

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:40:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-06 10:45:06 + George Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Might it be true to generalize so far as to say:
> >Don't talk with us, don't do anything to us, *just* because we're 
> >women. (?)
> 
> Further generalisation:
> 
> Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.
> 
> That has the benefit of being non-sexist and fitting most (all?) 
> discrimination.

It's entirely unworkable, however. At some point you have to draw the
line - Debian is founded upon discrimination against non-free things
and against broken code, and by extension, their creators and
users. The NM process is founded upon discrimination against the
stupid and the useless. The US is founded upon discrimination against
the poor. Etcetera.

Somewhere in here lies a subtle but significant difference, and it's
rather tricky to pin down. However, it is necessary to do so, because
both sides of the line are equally bad. Just to make things even more
fun, even once you have a firm grasp of where it lies for the extreme
cases, one will come along which is horribly ambiguous (the welfare
state is one which is frequently debated with no real conclusions).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-06 10:45:06 + George Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



Might it be true to generalize so far as to say:
Don't talk with us, don't do anything to us, *just* because we're 
women. (?)


Further generalisation:

Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.

That has the benefit of being non-sexist and fitting most (all?) 
discrimination.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-03-06 00:33:40 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



I don't think she is guessing. Indeed, the men here have done
exactly what she thought they would [...]


Of course, this is not directly caused by the chromosomes present, so 
it is stupid to write "the men here" when criticising sexism. I seem 
to remember being called a range of things when questioning apparently 
sexist behaviour of a pro-women participant.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Helen Faulkner wrote:

> Just because some people have difficulty understanding that there are
> barriers that make participation in things like the debian community
> more difficult (on average) for women than men, doesn't mean the
> barriers don't exist.  Social and cultural barriers are more difficult
> to see than physical barriers

...mental ones even more so.  Contrary to popular opinion, I was 100%
sincere in both my comment about your mental state and that it wasn't
meant as simple disparagement.  It was the bit about not having suffered
from any hostile behavior but still worrying that you might.  You see
while I may be a bit tone deaf to the plight of the white woman, I do know
a thing or two about living in an environment that seems oblivious to you
and your needs.  I'm not just talking about the obvious ethnic/religious
angle either though I don't want to get into details.  Suffice it to say
I've been and in some contexts continue to be the stranger/outsider.  I
recognize the sentiment in your original post and that's why I'm adamant
that you should not succumb to it nor should others encourage you to.  It's
no way to live.

> comments on this thread alone.  They are also more difficult to lower.
> It comes down to what the community as a whole wants to do.
>

In the time I've been involved with Debian these paroxyms of hand-wringing
have occurred several times before.  Nothing ever came of them then, and I
doubt anything will come of them now.  That's for Debian as a whole.  But
parts of the community may be interested and that's all you really need.

Unfortunately the idealistic tone of e.g. the social contract leads people
to think Debian is going to be some kind of nude love-in.  It's not.

> For the record all my more general statements apply to my understanding
> of the position of the *average* woman.  There are of course people who
> don't fit that average.  (Actually I'm one of them, but that doesn't
> mean I don't experience enough of the same feelings to understand the
> problems people have to deal with.)
>

Most people don't fit the average.  The average family has 2.4 children
but have you ever seen a .4 child?  If there is any overriding mentality
that describes Debian members, it is one which is not shared by the vast
majority of the population.  Incremental change in outlook may occur
(though I the cynic think not) but radical change will not.

You personally might find working with Debian a pleasurable experience
though.  Forget about making yourself the ambassador of other people and
ask yourself if building a free and excellent operating system is
something you would like to do.  If yes, you now know some people who
might be able to help you do it.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>   I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
>  obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
>  nothing to address?
>

Could be.  Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means for testing it are inadequate.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>   OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
>  resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;

Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging in a little rhetorical
sleight of hand here over the words "in Debian"  It has already been
mentioned by others that very few Debian developers (arguably one good
definition of what comprises Debian) ever go there.  One could also note
that a high proportion of IRC users in general are asshats and women get
that sort of treatment almost everywhere.  Which still makes it a problem but
not a Debian specific one.

Here are some other examples of how women are treated in Debian.

In January 2003 (picked at random) there were 1601 posts to the
debian-user mailing list.  55 of those (3.5%) were from female-sounding
names as far as I can tell.  No incidents of harrasment or condescencion
occurred.  Is this the true face of Debian?

In the same month 2002 posts were made to debian-devel.  1 was by a woman.
This month was notable for the "Jack Howarth is a fucking idiot" thread.
Is this the true face of Debian?

During the time period including this month Karolina Lindqvist made .debs
for KDEs' CVS snapshots.  This was done outside the official Debian
framework altogether but they were very popular with Debian KDE users
(including myself.)  Is this the true face of Debian?

I haven't kept any hard figures on it but in the four years I've been at
the Debian booth at LinuxWorld in New York we've consistently had greater
than 3.5% of the visitors be women (I would estimate about 20% but see
caveat above.)  None of them to my recollection have ever been snubbed or
talked down too.  Is this the true face of Debian?

The fallacy in your use of Debian is that you assume there is a fixed idea
of the boundaries of Debian and that everyone thinks it is at the same
place as you.

Lastly, since you mentioned it (and mentioned it, and mentioned it) In the
month of November 2003 (I'd had a hard drive crash earlier that year that
makes January data unavailable) I wrote or responded to 125 emails in
relation to Debian matters.  Of those 4 were from women (Curiously also
3.5% statistical fluke or trend?)  Actually one woman but the thread
included "aw, you're a dear" and "I'm delighted it was resolved so
quickly."  Pretty good for a neanderthal eh?

You are welcome to do additional research along these lines.  I for one
conclude there is no problem that concerns me.  If you on the other hand
still do, don't wait for Debian, have at it!  You can solve it right now
by signing Helens or some other womans GPG key, and sponsoring them
through the new maintainer process.  Or by setting an example as a paragon
of politeness and civility.  Sure I won't lift a finger to help but I
won't lift one to hinder either so I shouldn't bother you because it's
just as much an instance of "Debian" solving problems as anything else.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:

> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems which have been studied
> and are similar to the Project in other ways.
>

Well while we're pontificating...to what extent _is_ Debian a social
system?  It has one big fat signifier of being one -- a written social
contract.  It has some procedures, in-jokes (i.e. duelling banjos) and
specialized vocabulary (ITP, debianize etc.)  But on the other hand there
is very little agreement on anything other than the desire to create a
free, technically excellent operating system.  And even there, there is
disagreement on how free is free.  A good number of "made members" of
Debian don't even bother voting in project leader elections (I believe the
turnout last year was 58%,) at the other extreme a group making a cd of
open source software for Windows adopted the Debian Free Software
Guidelines as their criteria even though they have nothing to do formally
with Debian at all.  How would you classify both poles in terms of being
part of the Debian social system?

Some developers just fix bugs in their packages as reports come in and
thats it.  Others breath, eat, and sleep Debian.  I think most developers
start with the former and progress (though usually not all the way!)
towards the latter.  The requirement to have a key signed by an existing
developer which was adopted several years encouraged this trend.  Now we
have more frequent face-to-face meetings (such as debconf,) things like
Planet Debian etc. which help put a more human face on those From: lines.
Things of this nature would do a lot to decrese the levels of aggression.
For instance one of the reasons I was able to shrug off Manoj's
vituperation was because I've never seen him before and care not a whit
what he thinks of me.  Conversely, those Debianites who've met me might
accuse me of a lot of things but being "a big bag of dripping hacker
testosterone" is not going to be one of them.  (I'm more like the guy
smiling in the back of the photo.  The one people know but can't remember
the name of.  But I digress.)   If we knew each other better both of our
reactions would be likely to be rather different.

Here's the fly in the ointment though. While increasing the effectiveness
of the Debian social system would help break down some barriers, it would
raise others to people who already have extensive investment in other
social systems.  Any talk of representation has to take that into
account.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:34:39PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> >and just as you don't cure quadraplegia by breaking the arms and legs of
> >healthy people, you don't cure meekness by making healthy people fearful &
> >timid.
> 
> Nice analogy.  It is indeed not the fault of able-bodied people that some
> people have quadraplegia.  If, however, a group finds that they have a
> disproportionately low representation of quadraplegics involved, it's
> possible that enquiry will reveal a barrier to involvement that effects
> people with quadreplegia more than able-bodied people.  Maybe there are
> stairs at the entry to the building.  Are you really suggesting that the
> able-bodied community should not at least attempt to lower that access
> barrier by providing a wheelchair-ramp?  I guess it depends on what kind of
> community you wish it to be, and how much you value the participation of
> those who are effectively denied entry by a barrier that is insignificant to
> you personally.

no, i'm not suggesting that at all.  it is perfectly appropriate to have ramps
and wheelchair access and welcoming committees and whatever else is needed to
accomodate people with different needs(*).

what i am *stating* (not suggesting) is that it is wrong to expect the
able-bodied to act as if they are crippled merely to make the disabled fit in.
 
ditto for meek vs non-meek people.  it is wrong to expect or demand that
non-meek people behave timidly and fearfully just to cater to the needs of the
meek.


(*) as long as they still fit the charter of the group - e.g. it would be
absurd to care that people with no interest or skill in hacking or other
technical fields are effectively excluded from participation in debian.


> Just because some people have difficulty understanding that there are
> barriers that make participation in things like the debian community more
> difficult (on average) for women than men, doesn't mean the barriers don't
> exist.  Social and cultural barriers are more difficult to see than physical
> barriers - that much is clear from some of the comments on this thread alone.
> They are also more difficult to lower.  It comes down to what the community
> as a whole wants to do.

i have no difficulty in perceiving the barriers.  i just happen to think that
the causes behind the barriers are nowhere near as clear-cut and one-sided as
you appear to think they are.

> For the record, I'm not a particularly meek person :)  But whether I am or
> not is beside the point.  The point is that barriers exist to participation
> in debian by women, and that as a result *on average* a women is less likely
> to participate in debian than a man with the same level of skill.  If the
> debian community wish to have greater partipation from women, maybe they need
> to work out how to reduce the overt barriers (eg sexist comments, harassment
> etc), and provide "ramps" to lower the effect of the more subtle barriers (eg
> lack of confidence).

certainly there should be no tolerance for harassment or sexist comments.  or
racist comments. or homophobic comments. or any other kind of hate speech or
group discrimination.

i'm not so sure about any requirement to prop up people's confidence, though -
i kind of feel that that is outside of the scope of debian, that people should
have their shit together to at least a minimal degree before participating.  we
shouldn't be dragging each other down, but there should be no compulsion to
prop each other up, either.

debian isn't an emotional support group, and shouldn't try to be one.  that
would just divert energy from what we are about, which is the development of an
operating system.

and that's perfectly OK - not everything has to be an emotional support group.
there is room in this world for groups that don't expend large amounts of
energy on emotional issues, that focus on other things (like OS development).



> How much harm can it do to make the effort??

that depends on exactly what is involved in making the effort.

some actions are worthwhile, some are counter-productive.

sometimes, if you try to change something too much you just end up killing
whatever it was that made it worthwhile.




to make a more general (albeit extreme) point: we should be very wary of
creating a mono-culture of kindergarten safety, where there is no chance of
offence or insult or injury.  that way lies cultural stagnation and bland
boredom.  there are also functional, healthy adults in this world, not just
children and emotional cripples, and their needs should be catered for too.

craig

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> yes, bullying happens too.  but meekness happens whether there is any actual
> bullying or not.

Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > meekness isn't about bullying.
> > 
> > it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> > it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
> > socially crippled..it is not the fault, or responsibility, of non-meek
> > people, any more than fully-abled people are at fault for the disabled.
> 
> Except, for example, when the perceived bullying is really there, that's
> obviously the fault of those doing the bullying.

yes, bullying happens too.  but meekness happens whether there is any actual
bullying or not.

craig

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[David B Harris]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Is this just a game to you?
> 
> I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.

I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ended up being
flamewars about correct debating etiquette, style, and reason :)

-- 
   Aruing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Helen Faulkner]

From: Craig Sanders

meekness isn't about bullying.

it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
socially crippled..it is not the fault, or responsibility, of non-meek
people, any more than fully-abled people are at fault for the disabled.

and just as you don't cure quadraplegia by breaking the arms and legs of
healthy people, you don't cure meekness by making healthy people fearful &
timid.


Nice analogy.  It is indeed not the fault of able-bodied people that some people 
have quadraplegia.  If, however, a group finds that they have a 
disproportionately low representation of quadraplegics involved, it's possible 
that enquiry will reveal a barrier to involvement that effects people with 
quadreplegia more than able-bodied people.  Maybe there are stairs at the entry 
to the building.  Are you really suggesting that the able-bodied community 
should not at least attempt to lower that access barrier by providing a 
wheelchair-ramp?  I guess it depends on what kind of community you wish it to 
be, and how much you value the participation of those who are effectively denied 
entry by a barrier that is insignificant to you personally.


Just because some people have difficulty understanding that there are barriers 
that make participation in things like the debian community more difficult (on 
average) for women than men, doesn't mean the barriers don't exist.  Social and 
cultural barriers are more difficult to see than physical barriers - that much 
is clear from some of the comments on this thread alone.  They are also more 
difficult to lower.  It comes down to what the community as a whole wants to do.


For the record, I'm not a particularly meek person :)  But whether I am or not 
is beside the point.  The point is that barriers exist to participation in 
debian by women, and that as a result *on average* a women is less likely to 
participate in debian than a man with the same level of skill.  If the debian 
community wish to have greater partipation from women, maybe they need to work 
out how to reduce the overt barriers (eg sexist comments, harassment etc), and 
provide "ramps" to lower the effect of the more subtle barriers (eg lack of 
confidence).


For the record, I make no particular assumptions about the way any specific 
debian person will behave towards me.  However if I was inclined to do so, some 
of the postings on this thread would make me assume, more strongly than I would 
have before, that debian guys are likely to be either condescending or sexist. 
I have learned something through this experience!  Isn't it lucky that I don't 
really go for making such assumptions ;)


For the record all my more general statements apply to my understanding of the 
position of the *average* woman.  There are of course people who don't fit that 
average.  (Actually I'm one of them, but that doesn't mean I don't experience 
enough of the same feelings to understand the problems people have to deal with.)


For the record, I am not trying to blame the debian community for the existence 
of barriers to women in this context.  That would be like blaming able-bodied 
people because some people have disabilities, and anyway the causes of the 
problem go much wider than the debian community.  However I do believe that if 
that community wishes to encourage greater particpation by women, making an 
effort to lower the subtle barriers would help.  It's clear, from many of the 
posts to this thread, that lots of you are certainly willing to try that.   How 
much harm can it do to make the effort??


Helen-the-unmeek  :)

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader]

* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 01:36]:
>   OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
>  resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
>  helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
>   However, #debian on irc.debian.org has become a very
>  unfriendly place, and not just for women.

I've asked the #debian channel operators to comment on this and to
explain how they'll handle situations like these in the future, and
David B Harris kindly wrote the response below.


From: David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

As background for this mail, I'd like to state just a few things for
the record. Though I'm currently the #debian "Contact" (the person
titularly responsible for an IRC channel), I am not the most active of
the #debian channel operators. While this mail has my name on it, it
was provided to other senior channel operators for review and editing
before it was sent.

The contents of this mail are primarily a written record of a set of
conversation which occured in #debian-devel, and basically document
the policies #debian channel operators have held themselves to for as
long as I can remember. It was prepared at the request of the Debian
Project Leader.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:36:39 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   I should say, though, that the ops did  handle the situation,
>  and promised to take action if they notice such behaviour in the
>  future. The policy is that anyone deliberately offensive to anyone
>  else , or persistent about non-delibrate offensiveness, will be
>  removed from the channel.

Indeed. The policy of #debian channel operators is and always has been
that anybody being deliberately offensive to another (or, within
reason, somebody *not* being deliberately offensive, but being
persistent about it), will be banned. In this context, "banned" means
unable to contribute to further conversation in the channel.

Such measures are, however, typically a last resort - we live in a
large world, and something said in an innocent manner might be found
amazingly offensive by another. As such, #debian channel operators
attempt to encourage good communication between all parties, so that
further incidents might be avoided.

Only when this is unsuccessful, for whatever reason, are technical
measures put in place. They are not meant as punishment, nor are they
intended to satisfy the desire any one individual. Rather, they're put
in place in order to preserve the usefulness of the channel to others.
Those technical measures are rarely permanent, however - oftentimes,
people simply need to "cool off". Only repeated offenses will result
in a permanent ban, in most cases.

>   However, #debian on irc.debian.org has become a very
>  unfriendly place, and not just for women.

I agree that the usefulness of the channel to others has been
declining recently. There are currently 12 active channel operators,
and it's a very rare occasion that there are *no* channel operators
watching the channel at any one time. However, the users of #debian
are wide and varied, and often have differing opinions. While one may
wish to jump up and ban any who are being particularly forceful in
the expression of their opinion, we shouldn't fail to recognise the
possibly beneficial end-results of any given debate.

One of the things which we attempt to do is to encourage
communication, both amongst users and between users and channel
operators. The #debian channel operators are generally quite skilled
at lowering the temperature of a given conversation, and have enough
experience to determine to a reasonable degree the intent of the
various participants.  Misunderstandings abound, and often it takes a
bit of experience to sort through the mess.

What's more, it is often the case that a channel operator simply
stepping in and "taking care" of the problem is counter-productive;
many people react negatively to such shows of force. As such, channel
operators walk a fine line between acting as mediator, enforcer,
policy-maker, and passive bystander.

By far the best course of action for anybody who feels that they have
been offended (whether deliberately or not) is to simply tell those
who offended them what they were offended *by*. If the results
thereafter aren't satisfactory to any one individual, contacting one
of the channel operators is the appropriate course of action. The list
of channel operators is available via "/msg chanserv access #debian
list", but most #debian regulars are already familiar with the most
active from that list.

 -- David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Raul Miller]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> > with it:
> > 
> > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies.  ...
...
> I think you just made my point better than I did. I don't want to live
> in that society.

I don't either.

-- 
Raul

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Raul Miller]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.

If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt
that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim),
then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express
those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence.

> It is logically impossible for you to disprove this,
> because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal logic,
> you've allowed a falsehood to be introduced, so it is impossible to
> draw any conclusions within the current situation).

You're confusing science with math.  Science uses math as a tool of
thought, but they are very different.  It's not very hard to find
descriptions of science, if you care to study up on what it is.
Here's something google pulled up, ferinstance:

http://www.srikant.org/core/node2.html

[Though, practically speaking, I don't know of any way to falsify
string theory.]

That said, this thread no longer has anything to do with asking candidates
any question.  [Note the subject line.]

-- 
Raul

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:18:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I certainly won't tolerate it. It's fundamentally incompatible with
> getting any useful work done. Down that road leads political
> correctness (not just the word-substitution form), where you cannot
> say something that is true and technically significant because it
> might upset somebody.

"Debian includes non-free software"

Cheers,
aj

("...in its non-free component")

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Josip Rodin]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Is this just a game to you?

I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> > babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
> 
> Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> with it:
> 
> "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies.  Here we
> have an orange-haired person, and babies keep disappearing.  While
> there is still some argument on the point of whether or not it is
> acceptible to keep losing our babies, most of us agree that this is a
> Bad Thing.  Maybe it is time to take steps to keep the babies away from
> the orange-haired person, you know, see if that makes a difference."

I think you just made my point better than I did. I don't want to live
in that society. It was s/gamers/orange hair/ and s/violent/like to
eat babies/, btw.

> > > Is this just a game to you?  Did you think there were judges on the
> > > sidelines keeping notes about who was using the wrong standard of
> > > proof, or making unwarranted assumptions?  It's not a game to the ones
> > > who started this thread.
> > 
> > "It's not a game, therefore the rules (of logic) do not apply".
> 
> More like - there comes a point where calling people on the carpet for
> what amount to technicalities is counter-productive and useless.

So an invalid argument is just a technicality? It's okay to be wrong?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Peter Samuelson]

[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".

Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:

"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies.  Here we
have an orange-haired person, and babies keep disappearing.  While
there is still some argument on the point of whether or not it is
acceptible to keep losing our babies, most of us agree that this is a
Bad Thing.  Maybe it is time to take steps to keep the babies away from
the orange-haired person, you know, see if that makes a difference."


> If you want to promote some action based on your guess - go
> ahead. But don't try to pretend it's based on anything but a
> guess. See how far you get.

I'm perfectly happy to suggest courses of action based on guesses
backed by anecdotal evidence but not firmly proven.  I'm not doing so
at this time, because I'm not the one with the ideas.


> > Is this just a game to you?  Did you think there were judges on the
> > sidelines keeping notes about who was using the wrong standard of
> > proof, or making unwarranted assumptions?  It's not a game to the ones
> > who started this thread.
> 
> "It's not a game, therefore the rules (of logic) do not apply".

More like - there comes a point where calling people on the carpet for
what amount to technicalities is counter-productive and useless.  If
you're discussing going out for beer with a few friends, do you make
them follow Robert's Rules of Order?


> My direct point was that the argument "There are no other possible
> explanations" was false.

I think that's easy enough to concede.  In fact, I don't remember
seeing it argued otherwise.  So, what alternative explanations have
been offered?  Occam's Razor would seem to rule out the effects of
sunspots.

> My indirect point was that the fact that the causes cannot be known
> does not justify action based upon a guess as to what those causes
> are.

Action is justified on a basis weighted by the likelihood that the
theory suggesting the action is correct (i.e., the action is likely to
be effective), and by the urgency of the desire to address the problem.
The fact that the cause of a problem cannot be known for sure does not
by itself justify action, but it also does not justify *inaction*.

In other words, I would suggest that the burden of proof does not, in
cases such as these, rest solely with the affirmative.  If you would
argue that it does -- and simultaneously that hypotheses concerning
social structures cannot really be proven -- then by implication,
changes should not be made to social structures at all, and you may as
well come right out and say it.  I could be reading you wrong, but that
seems to be the gist of your earlier verbiage about "not lowering one's
standard for proof".

But this is silly anyway.  At the point I jumped in, this had become a
meta-debate; now it seems to be turning to a meta-meta-debate.  Since,
amazingly enough, I've got other things I could be doing with my time,
I'll go ahead and let you have the last word here, if you want it.

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[George Sawyer]

Erinn,

> -- "Erinn Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 5 Mar 2004
02:19:29 -0500 said:
>
> If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women:
> 1. Don't pander to us just because we're women.
> 2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
> 3. Don't insult us just because we're women.

Thank you for your involvement in this way.

Might it be true to generalize so far as to say:

Don't talk with us, don't do anything to us, *just* because we're women. (?)

Generalizations can give powerful insights.

Thanks,
George Sawyer

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Ben Burton]

> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
> 
> If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
> more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
> action based on your guess - go ahead. But don't try to pretend it's
> based on anything but a guess. See how far you get.

There are actions less severe than "locking someone up", and there are
certainly approaches we can try that are appropriate when based on
educated guesses.  Hell, this is done in the real world all the time -
outside the context of pure mathematics there is precious little that
can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

b.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> That may be true.  However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
> to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
> you seem to be asking for. 

By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it first hand myself.  All I said was that, from Helen's
post, it sounded as if she were engaging in some negative stereotyping
herself. 

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
> similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
> result.  And even to take action based on that assumption.  Or do you
> always wait for perfect information before making a decision?

You are surely right here.  There is a parodoxical situation, in that
the following are both true in my opinion:

1) The bullying that goes on in Debian is off-putting to a much
   greater percentage of women than men, and we must fix it if we want
   to increase the number of women who want to participate, and

2) Despite the truth of (1), it is a bad stereotype for any given
   woman to assume that Debian will bully her because just she is a
   woman and that Debian is mostly men.

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Peter Samuelson]

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix.  I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel.

That may be true.  However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
you seem to be asking for.  I have little to add to her post, which you
can find here:

  
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2004/debian-project-200403/msg00086.html

All I can really add is that she's not making this stuff up.  I've been
on freenode::#debian for a few months now and I've seen the harassment,
the unwelcome advances, the juvenile behavior, the abuse, that she's
talking about.  It's not all sexual in nature, to be sure - the #debian
channel sometimes drives away potential *male* users as well.

WRT mailing list behavior, I don't have a lot of grounds to comment -
I haven't been actively following the lists for nearly as long.

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> > where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> > for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> > be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> > been conclusively proven.
> 
> As may be.
> 
> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems which have been studied
> and are similar to the Project in other ways.
> 
> I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
> similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
> result.  And even to take action based on that assumption.  Or do you
> always wait for perfect information before making a decision?

"We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".

If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
action based on your guess - go ahead. But don't try to pretend it's
based on anything but a guess. See how far you get.

> > Correlation across a large number of systems does *not* demonstrate
> > that the same thing will happen in any individual system.
> 
> Is this just a game to you?  Did you think there were judges on the
> sidelines keeping notes about who was using the wrong standard of
> proof, or making unwarranted assumptions?  It's not a game to the ones
> who started this thread.

"It's not a game, therefore the rules (of logic) do not apply".

I don't accept that. I can't imagine why anybody would. Logic is for
dealing with the real world.

> If you'll recall, this started with a simple
> question about what can and should be done about the gender imbalance
> in the Project.  Surely it would be more productive to search for
> hypotheses about the causes for this imbalance, than to offer silly
> theories like sunspots to illustrate your point that, because the
> science is inexact, the real causes can never be known.

That was not my point. My direct point was that the argument "There
are no other possible explanations" was false. My indirect point was
that the fact that the causes cannot be known does not justify action
based upon a guess as to what those causes are.

> Any of those would be preferable to "insufficient data, therefore we
> have no choice but to ignore the issues".

I don't know where you pulled that one from. I'll guess that you got
it from Manoj, though.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Peter Samuelson]

[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been conclusively proven.

As may be.

All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
under-representation of women) as other systems which have been studied
and are similar to the Project in other ways.

I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
result.  And even to take action based on that assumption.  Or do you
always wait for perfect information before making a decision?

> Correlation across a large number of systems does *not* demonstrate
> that the same thing will happen in any individual system.

Is this just a game to you?  Did you think there were judges on the
sidelines keeping notes about who was using the wrong standard of
proof, or making unwarranted assumptions?  It's not a game to the ones
who started this thread.  If you'll recall, this started with a simple
question about what can and should be done about the gender imbalance
in the Project.  Surely it would be more productive to search for
hypotheses about the causes for this imbalance, than to offer silly
theories like sunspots to illustrate your point that, because the
science is inexact, the real causes can never be known.

If you say "nothing should be done, because the essential nature of the
Project is conflict, and those who cannot deal with conflict would be
best advised to stay away from the Project in any case" - then that's
at least taking a stance.  Likewise if you say "nothing *can* be done,
because enforcing a more civilised standard of behavior on our
developers and members of our support channels is effectively
impossible."  Alternatively, you might say "what should be done is to
take surveys and collect anecdotes of people's experience interacting
with the Project, so as to form a clearer picture."

Any of those would be preferable to "insufficient data, therefore we
have no choice but to ignore the issues".

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:06:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >  You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
> >> >  women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software
> >> >  coding, coding in general, and CS overall?
> >>
> >> Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.
> 
>   If that is the best theory you can advance, forgive me if I
>  prefer to stick to one with some scientific backing, and which tends
>  to actually explain the empirically observed data. The pattern of
>  behaviour, and the pattern of inclusion is not random, so your theory
>  is a very poor fit.

You're welcome to pick a default assumption (although I'll point out
that assumptions invariably play people false). But you can't claim
that it's true because it's the only possibility. Nor can you claim
that it's true because it's been proven, because it hasn't.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:26:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > >You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
> >> > >  women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding,
> >> > >  coding in general, and CS overall?
> >> >
> >> > Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.
> >>
> >> Way to completely ignore the problem, as well as testimonials by
> >> those involved. What a productive attitude.
> 
> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> 
>   Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
>  numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
>  sociologist.

No, I refuse to accept this. Psychology and sociology are fuzzy
"sciences" for the most part, where very little is proven. That does
not mean that the standards for proof should be lowered, it means that
their conclusions should be treated with the usual skepticism and not
as things which have been conclusively proven.

If somebody were to demonstrate that the majority of people with
orange hair liked to eat babies, then it might be reasonable to
allocate more resources to watch them more closely. It would not be
reasonable to assume that because a given person had orange hair, they
liked to eat babies. Most things that come out of sociology and
psychology take this form - they can give you "probably", or "N% of
this group will do X", but they can't usually give you "true in this
particular case". This is the difference between proof and
circumstancial evidence.

>  And there have indeed been documented studies of the
>  barriers women face breaking into male dominated institutions and
>  workplaces -- and debian certainly qualifies as the former.

That doesn't prove anything. It's not even particularly
convincing. "Debian is like another system where this happened,
therefore it will behave in the same way, because most other ones
did". That just indicates there is a plausible argument with a
not-insignificant probability of being accurate, it does not
intrinsically indicate that the argument is accurate.

Correlation across a large number of systems does *not* demonstrate
that the same thing will happen in any individual system. What about
all the systems where it didn't happen?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:39:17PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> With our underlying culture, I'm not sure if any attempts to change us will
> truly ever succeed in making us the caring, sharing, non-confrontational
> group that will make every person happy to work with us.  Hell, if we become
> non-confrontational, we'll probably lose some of the people who enjoy the
> confrontation - so we still won't be able to claim we're all-inclusive.  

I certainly won't tolerate it. It's fundamentally incompatible with
getting any useful work done. Down that road leads political
correctness (not just the word-substitution form), where you cannot
say something that is true and technically significant because it
might upset somebody.

People cannot usefully participate in a debate unless they grow a
skin, or while they are emotionally attached to an argument. Providing
crutches for them will only make things worse.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
> > very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
> > we have a reason to do otherwise.
> 
> Translation: "LALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!"

[No response, I just think I'll quote this in case anybody missed it]

> > I hypothesise that you are a gerbil. Gerbils can't form rational
> > arguments. Therefore you are wrong.
> > 
> > Your burden-of-proof notion is completely backwards, and the above is
> > an example of why. The burder of proof rests upon the one who wants to
> > introduce an assertion.
> 
> I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.

No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
arguments. It is logically impossible for you to disprove this,
because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal logic,
you've allowed a falsehood to be introduced, so it is impossible to
draw any conclusions within the current situation).

> >On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>   You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
> >>  women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding,
> >>  coding in general, and CS overall?
> >Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.
> 
> Manoj was talking about "free software coding, and CS overall" in
> addition to Debian as a whole.

He asked for an alternative. His suggestion was that there was only
one possible explanation, which is clearly false. This isn't very
interesting, it's foundational logic.

> The HOWTO you reference also deals with
> the larger scope as an example.

Which is apropos of nothing.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Raul Miller]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> meekness isn't about bullying.
> 
> it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
> socially crippled..it is not the fault, or responsibility, of non-meek
> people, any more than fully-abled people are at fault for the disabled.

Except, for example, when the perceived bullying is really there, that's
obviously the fault of those doing the bullying.

-- 
Raul

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:54:23PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> > There is a chronic systemic harrassment in Debian, but I have not seen
> > women get more of it.
> 
> I know I've said this some number of times already, but I'll say it again
> in just four lines so it's that much harder to miss.
> 
> The problem Helen refers to in the most part is not *overt* sexism.  The
> problem is *subliminal/covert* sexism, where everyone is treated the
> same way but women in general (through social training, upbringing,
> whatever) are less well adapted to such treatment.

Eh?  If it's sexism, it's racism, too, since some cultures (I've noticed it
mostly in Asian people) are far more deferential and less inclined to
confrontation.  It's also ageism, as older people aren't acculturated to
overt confrontation.

With a bit more work, I could probably think up a bunch more 'isms' we're
doing.

My point?  There's no point in labelling the problem, as it will target a
symptom ("let's be nicer to the girls") and not the root cause - that Debian
is a fairly confrontational culture, grounded in the deeply competitive
spirit of "the best code wins".

With our underlying culture, I'm not sure if any attempts to change us will
truly ever succeed in making us the caring, sharing, non-confrontational
group that will make every person happy to work with us.  Hell, if we become
non-confrontational, we'll probably lose some of the people who enjoy the
confrontation - so we still won't be able to claim we're all-inclusive.  

Hmm, I'm rambling again.  Should wrap it up.  First, is it a problem?  Yes,
I think it is.  The more people who feel comfortable becoming involved in
Debian, the better we can be.  How can we do it?  Probably only by
segragating somewhat - you find a Debian "sub-group" that you feel
comfortable working with, and you avoid d-devel and the other flamewar
territories.  Not perfect, but practically, we're never going to be able to
get some people involved in group hugs, and driving them away is as bad as
driving away the non-controntational people.

- Matt

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[David Nusinow]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
> very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
> we have a reason to do otherwise.

Translation: "LALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!"

> I hypothesise that you are a gerbil. Gerbils can't form rational
> arguments. Therefore you are wrong.
> 
> Your burden-of-proof notion is completely backwards, and the above is
> an example of why. The burder of proof rests upon the one who wants to
> introduce an assertion.

I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. I even
have people in the Debian project who have met me and can back up that I
am, indeed, a person. I can also provide evidence that there is sexism
present in #debian, and on the whole. I hope you don't actually consider 
yourself a scientist because you're really bad at this whole "Scientific
Method" thingy.

> > You replied to Manoj's mail, which was in the context of the larger
> > discussion. In addition to that, the example you cite is in the HOWTO,
> > which is a document written by a number of women who all share this
> > opinion completely outside of the specifics of the Debian proeject. Your 
> > advice goes both ways.
> 
> And here's what I said, quoting the entire text of the mail:
> 
> > Hey, I remember that incident, and the author of the HOWTO has blown
> > it out of all proportion. Try talking to the people involved.
> 
> Yup, precisely what I meant, and no references to anything else. What
> was that you were saying?

>On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>   You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
>>  women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding,
>>  coding in general, and CS overall?  
>Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.

Manoj was talking about "free software coding, and CS overall" in
addition to Debian as a whole. The HOWTO you reference also deals with
the larger scope as an example. Do try and pay attention.

 - David Nusinow

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The question to which Helen was initially responding was not "why should
> we change the environment?".  It was "why are there so few women in
> debian?".

Fair enough.

> If there are grander reasons for changing the environment then that's
> wonderful, but I honestly don't see what's wrong with someone discussing
> it in the context of the question that was actually asked.

No, that's well said; thanks for the correction.

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Ben Burton]

> We should change
> the environment because it is bad, not because "it's bad to women".

The question to which Helen was initially responding was not "why should
we change the environment?".  It was "why are there so few women in
debian?".

If there are grander reasons for changing the environment then that's
wonderful, but I honestly don't see what's wrong with someone discussing
it in the context of the question that was actually asked.

Ben.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The problem Helen refers to in the most part is not *overt* sexism.  The
> problem is *subliminal/covert* sexism, where everyone is treated the
> same way but women in general (through social training, upbringing,
> whatever) are less well adapted to such treatment.

But then we should stop treating *everyone* that way.  Because women
are individuals, not members of some generic group.  Some women
(perhaps a majority) are less well adapted, but so are plenty of men;
and there are both men and women who are so well adapted to such an
environment.

So we should end that environment for everyone. 

When I complained that Craig Sanders was outrageously abusive to me, I
met with a chorus of people who said either "yeah, but what are you
going to do?" and "you're just too thin-skinned".  

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:28:49PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:10:45PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There is a massive difference between "working assumption" and
> > "proven".
> > 
> > "To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
> > refer to these arguments as proofs" was, I believe, originally
> > referring to physics, but it was not intended as an example of what to
> > do.
> 
> You've still not presented an alternative.

The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
we have a reason to do otherwise.

> The working hypothesis stands
> simply because that's where the evidence points. The burden of
> disproving it is on the naysayer. That's what science is, disproving
> hypotheses by observations. Go for it.

I hypothesise that you are a gerbil. Gerbils can't form rational
arguments. Therefore you are wrong.

Your burden-of-proof notion is completely backwards, and the above is
an example of why. The burder of proof rests upon the one who wants to
introduce an assertion.

> > > > The anecdote presented was grossly mischaracterised and not an example
> > > > of what it claimed to be.
> > > There are other anecdotes.
> > Which I was not talking about. Pay attention to the mails you are
> > replying to.
> 
> You replied to Manoj's mail, which was in the context of the larger
> discussion. In addition to that, the example you cite is in the HOWTO,
> which is a document written by a number of women who all share this
> opinion completely outside of the specifics of the Debian proeject. Your 
> advice goes both ways.

And here's what I said, quoting the entire text of the mail:

> Hey, I remember that incident, and the author of the HOWTO has blown
> it out of all proportion. Try talking to the people involved.

Yup, precisely what I meant, and no references to anything else. What
was that you were saying?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Ben Burton]

> There is a chronic systemic harrassment in Debian, but I have not seen
> women get more of it.

I know I've said this some number of times already, but I'll say it again
in just four lines so it's that much harder to miss.

The problem Helen refers to in the most part is not *overt* sexism.  The
problem is *subliminal/covert* sexism, where everyone is treated the
same way but women in general (through social training, upbringing,
whatever) are less well adapted to such treatment.

Ben.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 1) That debian contains bullying or aggressive elements.  She is *not*
> inventing this, she did *not* come into the discussion with this as a
> stereotype that she's trying to fit debian into.  It's quite clearly
> observable.

This part I agree about.

> 2) That women in general are less suited to such environments than men.

It does not matter if this is true.

There are some men who are very badly suited for such environments,
and there are some women who are very well suited.  We should change
the environment because it is bad, not because "it's bad to women".
It is perhaps bad to some women, or the average woman, but it is not
bad to all women.  And it is bad to plenty of men.

It should be changed--completely granted--but the berating of men has
to stop *too*, not just the berating of women.  The *general* treating
of people with disdain needs to go, not just one case of it.

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Ben Burton]

> I don't think she's flaky or mentally unstable.  I think she
> approached a concrete group of people by assuming they would fit a
> stereotype she had in mind, and that's a bad thing to do.

Please.  Her comments are centred around two premises:

1) That debian contains bullying or aggressive elements.  She is *not*
inventing this, she did *not* come into the discussion with this as a
stereotype that she's trying to fit debian into.  It's quite clearly
observable.

2) That women in general are less suited to such environments than men.
This claim is not specific to debian, and so there is a wide body of
data to draw on.  This has certainly been studied formally in the
context of high school education.  Moreover, this is something she has
had a chance to observe personally in wider contexts - AIUI she has an
undergraduate degree in engineering and a PhD in physics, both
male-dominated areas.

She's not pulling any of this out of the air.

b.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Manoj Srivastava]

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
>> >  women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software
>> >  coding, coding in general, and CS overall?
>>
>> Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.

If that is the best theory you can advance, forgive me if I
 prefer to stick to one with some scientific backing, and which tends
 to actually explain the empirically observed data. The pattern of
 behaviour, and the pattern of inclusion is not random, so your theory
 is a very poor fit.

When you have something that fits the observed data better, a
 model that can actually explain some of the patterns I have observed,
 I would be more willing to listen to you.

At this point, your views go in the same bin as those people
 claiming that the world is flat and the center of the universe, with
 stars just holes in the roof.

manoj
-- 
He who has a shady past knows that nice guys finish last.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 05 Mar 2004 12:01:34 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Anthony Towns  writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:25:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>> wrote:
>> > Anthony Towns  writes:
>> > > So, Helen is kind enough to summarise her views on why she
>> > > doesn't participate in the project as fully as she might, and
>> > > she's called a flake, mentally unstable and sexist for her
>> > > beliefs.
>> > Well, she said that she doesn't participate because boys will be
>> > mean to her.  Sounds sexist to me.
>>
>> There are other ways of responding to that sort of claim than
>> accusing people of being sexist, flakey or mentally unstable. That
>> you've chosen that particular way says something about you, and
>> says something about the project's culture.

> I don't think she's flaky or mentally unstable.  I think she
> approached a concrete group of people by assuming they would fit a
> stereotype she had in mind, and that's a bad thing to do.

Mind you, a stereotype that has played spectacularly true to
 form.  Far from being a bad thing to do, in retrospect, it seems
 stunningly sagacious.

manoj
-- 
"None of our men are "experts."  We have most unfortunately found it
necessary to get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert
-- because no one ever considers himself expert if he really knows his
job.  A man who knows a job sees so much more to be done than he has
done, that he is always pressing forward and never gives up an instant
of thought to how good and how efficient he is.  Thinking always
ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a state of mind in
which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the "expert"
state of mind a great number of things become impossible." From Henry
Ford Sr., "My Life and Work," p. 86 (1922):
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: EWL HOWTO unsuitable counterarguments, was: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:52:28 +1000, Anthony Towns  said: 

> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:07:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Such a wash of illogic from someone normally ground in logic
>> >> smacks of denial. [...]
>> > Play fair! [...]
>> Can't you read? [...] Listen to them, unless, of course, you want
>> to exercise the ostrich defence.  Just the same old empty frothing
>> at the mouth. [...]

> Debian: Illogical, unfair, illiterate, in denial, and frothing at
> the mouth!

> ...and all that's just when we're trying to work out how to be more
> approachable.

> Again, I dunno about sexism, but we've got hostility coming out of
> our ears.  Whether the explanation's "that we're mostly men, and
> cultural factors will incline us to this behaviour" or not, the
> question remains whether we think this is a problem and whether we,
> as a project, are willing to place higher expectations on ourselves,
> as members, of civil, pleasant, and inoffensive communication
> throughout the project?

Do you have any data that such polite conversation shall make
 it through our beetling brows?

manoj
-- 
The Celts invented two things, Whiskey and self-destruction.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   I don't think she is guessing. Indeed, the men here have done
>  exactly what she thought they would -- calling her a flake,
>  mentally unstable, inexperieiced, and sexist.

See, this wasn't "the men".  It was particular people.  It was not a
gender which did this, it was individuals.

>   If you pull your head out of the sand for a moment, you'll
>  notice it is not just stereotypes and guesswork; there is a chronic,
>  systemic, harrassment which is the bloody norm.

There is a chronic systemic harrassment in Debian, but I have not seen
women get more of it.  And, since you've been one of the folks who has
in the past berated me publicly, I can affirm that it gets done to men
too.  

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Craig Sanders]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:03:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
> >  trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
> >  cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to inherent biology.
> 
> I have no idea if this is true.  Moreover, I don't think it matters
> much.  We should stop penalizing meek people no matter what gender
> they are.  Debian should do less bullying, period.  If that has the
> effect of making some women feel more comfortable here who would not
> otherwise take part, all the better.

meekness isn't about bullying.

it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
socially crippled..it is not the fault, or responsibility, of non-meek
people, any more than fully-abled people are at fault for the disabled.

and just as you don't cure quadraplegia by breaking the arms and legs of
healthy people, you don't cure meekness by making healthy people fearful &
timid.

craig

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Mike Beattie]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:23:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > "We're a previously persecuted minority, dammit, treat us special, we
> > deserve the land you have worked hard for. even though we sit on our asses."
> 
> New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States all have some
> similarity vis-a-vis native populations.  But what you quote above
> sounds a little like you think "We stole this land fair and square".

Well no, I believe that our ancestors did though.

> None of this means that *today's* Europeans have any blame, but our
> ancestors surely did.  The land I am on was not merely "worked for",
> but also "stolen".>

Precisely, exactly what's happening here - No-one currently alive is to
blame for 'stealing' land... Anyway, this is all more centred around the
Treaty, and the allowance for 'grievance claims'.

This is all wildly OT though, so I won't post again.

Mike.
-- 
Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  ZL4TXK, IRLP Node 6184

 Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > >  You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
>> > >  women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software coding,
>> > >  coding in general, and CS overall?
>> >
>> > Sunspots. It's at least as convincing.
>>
>> Way to completely ignore the problem, as well as testimonials by
>> those involved. What a productive attitude.

> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Yes, very clever. And also very silly. When collated in large
 numbers, anecdotes _do_ become data -- ask any psychologist or
 sociologist.  And there have indeed been documented studies of the
 barriers women face breaking into male dominated institutions and
 workplaces -- and debian certainly qualifies as the former.

I acknowledge that burying ones head in the sand is one way of
 dealing with the issue, and I really should not be preventing you
 from doing that.

I shall not, however, try and dig a hole next to yours out in
 the sand.

manoj
-- 
optimist, n: A bagpiper with a beeper.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 05 Mar 2004 13:21:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
>>
>> True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
>> gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
>> complete with positive and negative controls? I'd rather take what
>> information is out there (including my own observations, and
>> observation is the most critical aspect of data gathering) and use
>> it.

> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix.  I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel.  Not even an anecdote.

I don't think she is guessing. Indeed, the men here have done
 exactly what she thought they would -- calling her a flake,
 mentally unstable, inexperieiced, and sexist.

And I suspect, from the other reports that I have been
 getting, that she was merely being polite in not naming names.

> If we want to solve the problem, we may need to look beyond
> stereotypes and guesswork.

If you pull your head out of the sand for a moment, you'll
 notice it is not just stereotypes and guesswork; there is a chronic,
 systemic, harrassment which is the bloody norm.

manoj
-- 
Freed by full realisation and at peace, the mind of such a man is at
peace, and his speech and action peaceful. 96
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> 
> True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
> gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
> complete with positive and negative controls? I'd rather take what
> information is out there (including my own observations, and observation
> is the most critical aspect of data gathering) and use it.

I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
worrying about and trying to fix.  I do not think that Helen has given
us any information about it; she is guessing at what men usually do,
and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women feel.  Not even
an anecdote.

If we want to solve the problem, we may need to look beyond
stereotypes and guesswork.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[David Nusinow]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:10:45PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There is a massive difference between "working assumption" and
> "proven".
> 
> "To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
> refer to these arguments as proofs" was, I believe, originally
> referring to physics, but it was not intended as an example of what to
> do.

You've still not presented an alternative. The working hypothesis stands
simply because that's where the evidence points. The burden of
disproving it is on the naysayer. That's what science is, disproving
hypotheses by observations. Go for it.

> > > The anecdote presented was grossly mischaracterised and not an example
> > > of what it claimed to be.
> > There are other anecdotes.
> Which I was not talking about. Pay attention to the mails you are
> replying to.

You replied to Manoj's mail, which was in the context of the larger
discussion. In addition to that, the example you cite is in the HOWTO,
which is a document written by a number of women who all share this
opinion completely outside of the specifics of the Debian proeject. Your 
advice goes both ways.

 - David Nusinow

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:02:26PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:54:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Absence of evidence is not justification for inventing evidence. If
> > you can't prove something, that doesn't mean you should lower the
> > standards for proof, it means that you can't prove it.
> 
> Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean that you can't work
> with what's available. I can think of countless examples in biology
> where people go on working assumptions because something isn't proven.
> I'm sure you can too. Your excuse is amazingly flimsy.

There is a massive difference between "working assumption" and
"proven".

"To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
refer to these arguments as proofs" was, I believe, originally
referring to physics, but it was not intended as an example of what to
do.

> > The anecdote presented was grossly mischaracterised and not an example
> > of what it claimed to be.
> 
> There are other anecdotes.

Which I was not talking about. Pay attention to the mails you are
replying to.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[David Nusinow]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:54:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Absence of evidence is not justification for inventing evidence. If
> you can't prove something, that doesn't mean you should lower the
> standards for proof, it means that you can't prove it.

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean that you can't work
with what's available. I can think of countless examples in biology
where people go on working assumptions because something isn't proven.
I'm sure you can too. Your excuse is amazingly flimsy.

> The anecdote presented was grossly mischaracterised and not an example
> of what it claimed to be.

There are other anecdotes. See Manoj's mail with the log in it, or the
various logs at http://www.p12n.org/misc/sexism/. Compounded evidence
certaintly lends weight to a hypothesis.

 - David Nusinow

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:08:14PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
> 
> True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
> gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
> complete with positive and negative controls? I'd rather take what
> information is out there (including my own observations, and observation
> is the most critical aspect of data gathering) and use it.

Absence of evidence is not justification for inventing evidence. If
you can't prove something, that doesn't mean you should lower the
standards for proof, it means that you can't prove it.

The anecdote presented was grossly mischaracterised and not an example
of what it claimed to be.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
>  trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
>  cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to inherent biology.

I have no idea if this is true.  Moreover, I don't think it matters
much.  We should stop penalizing meek people no matter what gender
they are.  Debian should do less bullying, period.  If that has the
effect of making some women feel more comfortable here who would not
otherwise take part, all the better.

>   The issue was not whether one should welcome meekness.  The
>  issue was whether we think that the missing representatiopn of 51% of
>  humanity lessens Debian as a project, and whether we feel that is a
>  situation that needs be rectified.  We may collectively decide that
>  changing the modus operandi is more trouble than the benefits of this
>  added participation are worth.

I agree with you here, and I agree it's worth the effort to try.

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:25:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns  writes:
> > > So, Helen is kind enough to summarise her views on why she doesn't
> > > participate in the project as fully as she might, and she's called a
> > > flake, mentally unstable and sexist for her beliefs.
> > Well, she said that she doesn't participate because boys will be mean
> > to her.  Sounds sexist to me.
> 
> There are other ways of responding to that sort of claim than accusing
> people of being sexist, flakey or mentally unstable. That you've chosen
> that particular way says something about you, and says something about
> the project's culture.

I don't think she's flaky or mentally unstable.  I think she
approached a concrete group of people by assuming they would fit a
stereotype she had in mind, and that's a bad thing to do.

Thomas

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

[David Nusinow]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
complete with positive and negative controls? I'd rather take what
information is out there (including my own observations, and observation
is the most critical aspect of data gathering) and use it.

 - David Nusinow