Re: No goals, selective memory, be nice, red nose day
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:33:50 +0100
MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 2004-08-23 00:32:01 +0100 Ricardo Mones <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > If we start from the assumption that -women subscribers in part want
> > > to remedy some problem of debian lists,
> > Well, the problem is of Debian in general, not only of the lists,
> > so this is a weak assumption.
> Of course. There's little enough collated evidence yet of any
> particular problem with the lists, let alone with debian in general.
> All we have so far here is an incongruous demographic and a lot of
> people putting forward pet theories with energetic handwaving. Even
> so, this weak assumption seems sufficient for this illustration, as I
> think most contributors see it as a reason for the list.
The weakness I was referring to is assuming that the problem is a
lists-only problem, not that the evidences of the problem are weak therefore
the problem doesn't exist, as you are trying to infer.
> > > then letting unproblematic posts come here instead of going to an
> > > appropriate list actually increases the problem proportion on the
> > > appropriate list.
> > Letting they come here first doesn't avoid they end on the
> > appropriate list.
> Can you provide some examples of threads here that actually result in
> a post to an appropriate list? I can think of one that did and one
> that has yet to appear where it was directed.
In the archives there are 17 posts on June, 325 on July and, ATM, 322 on
current month. This list has just born yesterday and you dare to request
examples from such minimal amount of biased mail? (first occurrences of any
process are usually discarded until the process reach the stable status).
But, wait, the counter-example is *one* mail? wow, impressive :-)
> > Setting the CC works also from debian-women. Also the problem may be
> > solved here before leaving, so I do not see how this increases problem
> > proportion in the existing list.
> I think you may have misinterpreted "problematic". By that, I meant a
> message which shows whatever habits subscribers here see as a problem
> of debian lists. Each post not showing those habits which only appears
> here is one less unproblematic post to the main lists, thereby raising
> their problem proportion. I think this might be what some call the
> "ghetto effect".
I see, yep, I misunderstood that. But still don't share the idea of the
"ghetto effect", at least not now, when the list is so young. I believe the
list currently acts as "entry door", "attracting pole" or whatever you want
to call it, that's the reason you're seeing a high level of women
involvement here, not because they're building a ghetto apart from the rest.
If in a couple or three years we still see the same distribution of genders
on the lists that we have today then you may talk of such ghetto effect, but
> >> Without careful handling, this list makes the other debian lists
> >> worse.
> > So the basis for posting-debian-woman badness is that people here
> > won't be able of caring enough to avoid such dispersion?
> Sorry, I don't understand this.
Well, as my reasoning here was based on a misunderstanding on my part it's
logical you don't get it :-)
> > A dangerous assumption IMO, I expected better grounded reasons.
> I believe they are better grounded than you seem to think.
Well, as exposed before I think they're grounded on your beliefs, not in
real data. You're predicting some effect on a list just born three months
ago, but show no significant evidence. Let the list evolve, then we'll see
how good or bad the results are, that's what I say.
> Anyway, how would you feel if I wrote "I expected better grounded
> objections"? I don't think this style of closing is noble.
I don't think my style on closing has any relevance on the matters
discussed here, but if you want to distract audience with "ad hominem"
arguments then we better end the thread here.
Anyway wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings, sorry if I did :-(
Ricardo Mones Lastra - firstname.lastname@example.org
Centro de Inteligencia Artificial, Universidad de Oviedo en Gijon
33271 Asturias, SPAIN. - http://www.aic.uniovi.es/mones