Bertrand wrote:
Comdev people, please vote on folding women@ into this mailing list,
see also [1].
The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
that directs people to this list instead.
[ ] +1 let's dot it
[ ] -1 no, because...
[ ] +0 don't care
+1 (non-binding) to close the women@ list and have the autoresponder
point to d...@community. I would object to having the list remain open
but also have an autoresponder; that's just too confusing.
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
...
Ross Gardler wrote:
...
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.
While there's a lot of interesting discussion here, and it's nice to see
people actively thinking about the issue of women@ again!, I'll just
point out the part: "...was a suggestion from the board..."
...
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.
Having duly noted the manner of this notification earlier this weekend, my
concern has been, again, that the process of holding a vote that affects
members of one list at a place off their home list, which therefore requires
them to sign up to another list before even getting a chance to voice
concerns relevant to them, is not good enough, even in this day and age imho
- hence my specifically joining the women@ list this weekend in order to
primarily bring these discussions, at least, back to its home turf.
Given the virtual silence on the women@ list for the past year or more,
I don't see any coherent community on the women@ list - hence, having
the ComDev PMC take over (however they feel is appropriate) is the right
thing to do. Lacking that, it's likely that either the board of infra
would simply shut down the women@ list without further discussion,
because it's not appropriate for the ASF to host resources without a
specific officer or PMC to be responsible for them. This isn't a value
judgement on what women@ is supposed to be for; it's simply that we need
to have a specific responsible owner for our resources.
Don't get me wrong: I would love to see some PMC find sufficient healthy
community to have someplace to comfortably discuss gender issues and
help do outreach to underserved communities. But the current women@
list doesn't qualify as a community (from the ASF perspective of
"community") at all at the moment.
- Shane
