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

Re: moving the wiki content?

Hi all,

Lesley Binks wrote @ 08/07/09 15:52:

> In a list and irc manner  I have rarely felt unwelcome within the
> Linux community and not yet within the Debian part of it.
> However in the light of the Ruby crap I feel it is even more important
> to keep the women sub-project going.

Nobody want's to do anything to the d-w project as a whole. D-W will go on
not matter what. The question is simply and only if we want to move the
contents that were put in the Debian-Women wiki when it was still in use
into the general Debian wiki instead of having it rot away somewhere in an
unlinked and unused wiki installation.

> I think I am happier if we have our own 'quarter' where we can make it
> absolutely clear
> certain topics stuff are not welcome, nor tolerated and at least have
> the expectation that we won't need to waste our time
> explaining alternative viewpoints to saddos like the CouchDB and Rails
> authors. ( I'm sorry I've only just picked up on the news about
> that event and I am trying to be as polite as I can be about it.  I'm
> just really angry right now.)

I fully agree that the internet contains a whole lot of people that range
from annoying to plain offensive. However:
1) This is Debian, not CouchDB and not Ruby
2) I don't think creating a parallel infrastructure/community is the
solution to the problem. We should show face and not hide away in some
kind of virtual gated community.

> I am happy to be a part of the Debian project - however small my part might be.
> I am also more than happy to help keep up the women's subproject wiki
> and web-pages going.

We can of course re-activate the D-W wiki, re-link it in our pages, clean
it up, upgrade the software etc. etc. However the reason it fell into
oblivion in the first place is that D-W currently doesn't really produce
much content, leave alone content that is so plenty and so dynamic that it
needs a whole wiki to keep track of it. So, I currently don't see we
should take the trouble.


Reply to: