community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
Date Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:04:28 GMT

Thanks for your comments.

A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7 
2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most 
recent email being Sept 14th 2007.

The fact is that people are not looking for a list called "women@". 
Nevertheless the reasons that the list was originally created are still 

The community development project was created last year. In our original 
resolution we had not proposed taking the women@ "activity". Instead we 
are focussing on making it easier for people in general rather than on 
the issues facing a specific group. The board requested that we take 
ownership of the women@ work too. Since women@ has always been "just a 
list" it has had no official role in the foundation. Bringing the 
activity into ComDev provides a vehicle through which more action can be 
taken if there are people willing and able to undertake such action.

Rolling the women@ list into the dev@community.a.o list need not be a 
permanent solution. If there is sufficient momentum behind the women@ 
objectives then we could, at some point in the future, create - however, at this point in time there is no 
need for such a list as demonstrated by the lack of activity on the 
existing women@ list [2].

Today, if you search for "women" on the apache website the first hit is 
the women section of the wiki [1]. By bringing women@ list (and 
objectives) under the ComDev banner we are potentially providing a much 
more "official" and "recognisable" home for women@ activities.

It is my hope that we can take advantage of the fact that the Community 
Development team consists of approximately 50% men and women.



On 16/07/2010 16:15, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>> -1 (unbinding)
>> because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
>> relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any
>> vote,
>> so to speak
>> in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
>> between the options of:
>> (a) closing women@ and
>> (b) setting up an autoresponder
>> agreeing to option (a) would mean that someone looking for the keyword
>> "women@" in order to discuss an issue that he/she/they may initially feel
>> fits into such a category, may not know to search for a "dev@"
>> possibility
>> instead, and so remain silence(d)
> I plan to post to women@ indicating that we are closing the list and
> dev@community welcomes their posts.
>> on the other hand, agreeing to option (b) could help mitigate this
>> circumstance
> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
> activity has moved to dev@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
> with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
> regards,
> -jean
>> but as the vote is currently construed, it is not possible to distinguish
>> between options (a) and (b), and so a simple vote count at the end of
>> this
>> vote may miss the point
>> personally, would like to keep a place for women@ if only for such
>> aesthetic
>> redirection for the time being at least ...
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> wrote:
>>>> [X ] +1 let's dot it
>>> -Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)


View raw message