[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform

* MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> [2005:03:10 14:01 +0000]: 
> I was pretty sure I put at least one suggestion through a bug
> tracker. My memory is not brilliant. Others were almost all
> off-list because of the atmosphere, so can't be shown in public
> and that means some here wouldn't believe it. :-/

There were suggestions you posted to the list. The bug you filed had to do
with how the website was licensed so it may be on alioth's BTS somewhere.
Well, I assume it was you -- it was filed anonymously.

> That's almost it, but there was also that the "detector" (I think
> I meant "troll advisor" but I'm not sure whether I used that
> name) should inform $PERSON off-list and advise them how they
> could get a voice within the debian-women culture. Probably
> a lot of the time that will be directing to FAQs or codes,
> but there's always something not covered there. Using a
> smaller number of people makes it easier to spot new conduct
> FAQs without overwhelming the list while people acculturate(?).

Yes. IIRC, this was applied to you which you disliked -- many of us
attempted to speak to you off-list and tell you why your on-list attempts
at engaging us weren't working. Alas...

> I think you've not felt the need because debian-women hasn't
> been communicating with the rest of the project as much as when
> Amaya sent out that mailshot. 

This is false. We regularly send updates to DWN (which we've already
established you don't read, but that's not our fault). Many members of DW,
specifically people in charge of it, are not DDs yet so we don't send
emails to d-d-a (yet).

> Is this because debian-women learnt from the response? Do you feel the
> group learnt the best thing?

I think all we learned was to ignore people we consider destructive to our
goals. So yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the best thing.

> > I don't consider ignoring people who seem to be out to shut down what we're
> > working on "broken" though. You may be enlightened by what you call
> > "debates", but many people (including myself) consider them draining,
> > pointless arguments, which may explain some of our silence in this thread
> > as well.
> There are points to them, in both directions, although sometimes
> the noise gets high here. Refusing to accept debate reinforces
> my impression of debian-women as irrationally stubborn. I find
> this quite amusing: my complaints to you seem similar to Sven's
> complaints to debian-legal.

Something you may not be understanding is that we have had these debates
about a thousand times. They are not interesting, new, or fun. They're
boring and counter-productive.

> > [...] I do not think that, due to their contributions, any of us would be
> > opposed to having them on the website. [...]
> Wow! That wasn't the impression I got last time I asked. If I
> submit a patch to http://women.alioth.debian.org/involvement/
> that reflects that, will you accept it? (Actually, how do I
> make a patch for that?)

The entire bio section needs to be rewritten; I'll work on it later. I'd
look at a patch but I may or may not accept it, depending on how much I
decide to change the text.

> I'm uninterested in the debian-women group 

I agree. I find myself wishing you would pay more attention to us. 

> I reiterate that the "silence" policy hinders you. I wish I
> could find the right campaign note here, but my workspace is
> a mess today. It suggests a short, polite, closed dismissal
> works better than trying to ignore their view, which fits with
> preserving "democratic possibility" or "political possibility"
> as a way to avoid conflict. Do you know that idea too?

Sure. I will employee this tactic from now on. :)

> Silence beats getting the flamethrower out, but it's not best
> practice.

Well, I've said my piece and don't plan to comment anymore. I've also set
the M-f-T accordingly for those who wish to continue the discussion.

off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: