[ Cc'ing you because I'm not sure if you're subscribed ] * MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> [2004:08:08 03:29 +0100]: > General FAQ > > Debian Women is described as affiliated to debian, but I can't find a > debian affiliate page on www.debian.org, so can this be explained > further? Well, we have a mailing list on the Debian mailserver and a website on alioth. I thought it was clear. How much clearer should I make it? Maybe it's a semantics thing -- I used 'affiliated' because it was a convenient word and meaning, but it seems it's a little more precisely defined than I thought. Perhaps s/affiliated/associated/? Or get rid of it entirely? Is *.debian.org explanation enough? > "workshops for young girls" seems ambiguous, possibly sexist. A less > sexist option could be better expressed as something like "workshops > aimed at young girls" or "workshops designed for young girls". Ok, this is a reasonable suggestion. I'll fix it. > LinuxChix is a group that has sex-segregated lists and permits sexism > by its chapters, as far as I can tell. As you know, I don't think a > debian group should endorse that discrimination. (I don't know the > other groups mentioned much.) LinuxChix is also linked on Planet Debian. I don't believe we are doing any more endorsing than they are. It's a "women in technology" forum which is more inclusive (in terms of technology), so I plan to leave it since a lot of women find it useful. > The TODO link goes to the top of the FAQ page, not the TODO. Yes, we're still working on the TODO list. :) > The answer to "Why isn't there a debian-men" seems not directly > relevant to debian-women. It was used by some supporters to answer > "why isn't debian-women sexist?" but it's not really an answer for > that. It might be better to answer that second question explicitly and > drop this answer. This is because the question is not entirely relevant to the Debian Women Project, but it's often asked, so it seemed sensible to point out that the existence of Debian Women does not preclude the existence of whichever other group people wish to request a mailing list for. I'll consider adding the second question (and an answer). > List FAQ > > The list of lists not to be reproduced is narrow. Should it be > extended to include -project and -newmaint, or generalised to "other > debian lists"? Possibly. These were the types of posts I anticipated the most (those pertaining to new maintainers, as well as user/developer questions), so I felt it was important to use those as examples. I'll consider this in the future if the questions get too broad -- for now a lot of them are centered around the project itself. > The advice on ignoring trolls seems to contradict the linked > document's advice to educate users about trolling. I suggest, if a > troll appears, whoever is currently responsible (one!) should > concisely point out to list and troll why the troll is considered so > (and not just "you are a troll AICM5P"). The issue with replying to a troll is that it can possibly lead to a flamewar where people feel the need to be heard. The problem with this is that many trolls are not listening and have no intention of listening to the views they are so opposed to. So yes, I think it is best to ignore them, but people new to the list should be able to identify trolls and their motivations, lest they get caught up in their desire to defend their "territory". I think, so far, others have already done a good job of pointing out the trolls. > IRC FAQ > > If it is necessary to set IRCNAME not to be insluted in the channel, > that should be stated in the FAQ. Well, it is not necessary to have this option set, but I think it's a good idea nonetheless. One of the only problems I can think of with this is that some people wish to keep their identity secret -- good people as well as malcontents. I'm not sure who will end up being penalized, though I guess people can make up fake names fairly easily. I'm also not sure how I would word something like this properly. I'll have to think about it. > The policies for using different channel- and user-altering flags > (like +b and +m) should be explained. Hmm, was this not explained in the linked IRC HOWTO? I didn't look through it exhaustively, so maybe a better link is in order. > The stated vague intolerance for flaming seemed not to exist during my > visit. This may have something to do with the fact that we've not completely identified our boundaries. I know I told at least one person to stop flaming you, but it's something I'll keep an eye out for in the future. Perhaps it would be good to point out that flaming people that disagree with us is just as inappropriate as them flaming us? This may not be as clear as it should. > Involvement > > The Profiles page is described as listing only women. Is that accurate? Yes. > The TODO link is broken (/todo is not found) and the IRC FAQ link goes > to the current page. Yes, (as above) I need to fix this. > Most of the rest of this page comes from debian-www's CVS, doesn't it? I didn't put this page together. I think it's a good reference for All Things Debian, though. > Profiles > > This might be different, as it's clearly marked as one person's view: > Systers is a sexist group only admitting women. Is it appropriate for > linking? Well, it was asked what other 'women in technology' groups the women were involved with, and I do not plan to censor them, so yes, it's appropriate. I'm not a member of Systers, so I'm unable to comment on their exclusivity. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide http://double-helix.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature