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 Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:53:01 GMT
Before addressing your suggestion I first wish to correct a few errors 
in your post.

The creation of ComDev was not made at the barcamp session you refer to. 
It was created prior to that meeting as a result of discussion through 
the normal ASF mailing lists and a subsequent Board Resolution.

The decision to roll women@ into ComDev was not "agreed" (as you put it) 
at the barcamp session either. It was a suggestion from the board when 
the ComDev resolution was passed.

On Oct 28th 2009 I made the women@ list aware of the opportunity to 
revitalize the women@ objectives through comdev [1]. Specifically I said 
"The women@a.o list has not really gone anywhere, but maybe this is 
another chance to look at the lack of female representation here at the 
ASF." This resulted in a few of the original women@ participants joining 
the comdev list where rolling women@ into comdev has been discussed on a 
few occasions.

The actual decision to roll women@ into comdev is the subject of a vote 
currently underway on comdev and this list was notified of the vote [2] 
to ensure full transparency.

OK, so that's the history of how we got here. No to look at your concerns.

You argue that a better solution would be to leave women@ open merely 
suggesting that comdev may be an appropriate alternative. I would 
counter that this only serves to split any effort that might emerge. 
Long history here at the ASF has shown that splitting communities along 
artificial lines results in weaker communities.

However, given that our communities do not have adequate representation 
from women perhaps this is an exceptional case. Please forgive me while 
I ask a few basic questions.

Why would someone post to women@ but not to comdev? That is, what does 
women@ provide that comdev does not (or vice-versa)?

Why haven't these people been posting to women@?

If we do bring women@ into comdev what can comdev do to address these 

How can comdev attract sufficiently motivated and time rich volunteers 
to make this happen?

Forgive me for asking these questions. They are genuine questions, I am 
concerned that I'm missing an important point here.




On 18/07/2010 22:39, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> Hi Ross,
> Thanks for replying to the women@ list and cc-ing to others as appropriate
> The matter at hand is of course one of decision-making process, albeit with
> regards to women@ on this occasion, and it is the process that concerns me,
> given that it may not be condusive to community development in its fullest
> sense and may, at best, turn out to engender mediocracy as if it were
> meritocracy in the longer term.
> Having participated in face-to-face discussions on topic, including the
> meeting last November when the formation of ComDev together with the idea of
> closing the women@ list was "agreed", my recollection is of the lady seated
> next to me, albeit not an apache member as yet afaik, commenting on her
> utter disbelief at what had just taken place by way of passing for
> "consensus" on the matter.
> Personally think that it will be interesting to try rolling women@
> into dev@whilst keeping women@open on the off chance that it doesn't
> really. If an autoresponder could be
> set up to introduce dev@ as an alternative place to post, without it being
> compulsory to do so, then we could keep a count of how many of those
> intending to post to women@ take up the offer of posting to dev@ instead,
> without being compelled to do so. Compelling any single person, let alone a
> group, to do anything other than what they are and /or have been trying to
> do in all good faith can be painful.
> But then, in this day an age, dare our generation be the ones to try setting
> any example otherwise? Does anyone care enough here?
> Best, A
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ross Gardler<>  wrote:
>> Anjana,
>> The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work
>> around here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if
>> someone cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set
>> up.
>> This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic, if you've not
>> seen that please check the archives. The discussion covers the topics you
>> raise.
>> I'll try and summarise for you if you prefer:
>> Women@ is aware of both the plan to merge lists and the vote underway.
>> The original driving force behind women@ has participated in all
>> discussion, as have a number of members of that list.
>> Rolling women@ into dev@ means closing the women@ list, all business from
>> that list will move here.
>> An autoresponder will be set up (I agree this was not clear in the original
>> vote, thank you for highlighting the importance of this).
>> By moving into comdev we get a place for the women@ issues to be
>> officially represented in the foundation as opposed to a largely inactive
>> list with no official status. I, and others, hope that this will enable us
>> to be more effective. However, if this proves not to be the case we can
>> create a women@community.a.o as appropriate.
>> Personally I don't see a need to hold up this action.  So I'm not going to
>> vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
>> Ross
>> Sent from my mobile device.
>> On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee<
>>>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
>>>> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
>> was
>>>> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens  :-)
>> but
>>>> no harm done.
>>> Thanks for kind reply, but my point was - and is - that the framing of
>> the
>>> vote as stated in Bertrand's original post on this thread is not clear,
>> and
>>> so is potentially harmful.
>>> In particular, it does not quite specify all of our possibly relevant
>>> options as distinct from one another, and so some of us may think we are
>>> voting for one thing, but may be counted as if having voted for something
>>> else.
>>> In other words, what could it mean to vote positively to roll women@into
>>> dev@ ?
>>> Does it mean closing the women@ list "and/or or" setup an autoresponder
>> to
>>> direct people to this list instead, as Bertrand has (literally) written?
>>> Or, could it mean, technically, keeping the women@ list open together
>> with
>>> an autoresponder that introduces dev@ and suggests posting to dev@instead,
>>> without it being compulsory to do so?
>>> And would past/present/future members of the women@ list feel that they
>> are
>>> being respectfully taken into account as a result of how this is being
>> done?
>>> Let me cc this to the women@ list btw, on the off chance that some of
>> these
>>> discussions [1] may be of direct interest, albeit that this vote has been
>>> principally conducted on the dev@ list only thus far.
>>> Hope this helps, A
>>> [1]

View raw message