Re: Debian Women lunch @ DebConf 18
I'd like to chime in and also thank Ulrike for taking notes.
I have some thoughts on this thread:
Debian Women -> Debian Diversity
I think this is a great idea (I supported it!). By widening the scope I
hope we can accomplish 1) making Debian even more welcoming and 2)
increase capacity for activities.
It was also explicitly stated that a merge would not mean deprecating
Debian Women, per se. It feels as though the major activities is holding
the occasional DW Mini DebConf, the DW lunch, and occasionally chatting
(or dealing with trolls) on IRC. So, events could easily still have a DW
lunch, but could also have a Debian Queer/LGBTQI+ lunch.
Mentorship
COME JOIN THE OUTREACH TEAM! Please. Please please please. We'll be
gearing up for submitting our application for the next round of
Outreachy soon enough (!!!), and having more people involved would be great.
I'd love to see DW/DD and the Outreach team collaborate on other
mentorship initiatives as well.
If people are interested in talking about any of this mentorship stuff
in the near term, we can plan some IRC meetings.
Cheers,
Molly
On 08/09/2018 03:37 PM, u wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Miriam Ruiz:
>
>> 2018-08-07 19:56 GMT+02:00 Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>:
>>
>>>> There was a proposal to merge the debian-women mailing list with the
>>>> future debian-diversity list. Several reasons for this proposal:
>>> [...]
>>>> - it nowadays seems too restrictive to reduce the list to people who
>>>> identify as women instead [...]
>>>
>>> while I agree with this reasoning I'd like to point out that this list
>>> when it was started was open to all, as was the Debian women project
>>> when it was started 13-14 years ago at DebConf4+5.
>>
>> I have always understood the Debian Women project as project inside
>> Debian that works to promote the involvement of more women in its
>> development. Thus, in my opinion, it still be open to everyone that
>> wants to work along these lines. While I think that the original text
>> from Ulrike can be perfectly understood in that sense (and while
>> making it also clear that I personally agree with the proposal), I
>> think that maybe it might be more clear if, instead of::
>>
>> """
>> it nowadays seems too restrictive to reduce the list to people who
>> identify as women instead of opening it up to a diversity of genders
>> (female, nonbinary, queer, genderfluid, gender*) and have a more
>> intersectional approach to underrepresented groups.
>> """
>>
>> it would be read as:
>>
>> """
>> it nowadays seems too restrictive to reduce the list to just people who
>> want to promote the involvement of more people who identify as women
>> in the development of Debian, instead of opening it up to working towards
>> the involvement of more people who might identify with a diversity of genders
>> (female, nonbinary, queer, genderfluid, gender*) and have a more intersectional
>> approach to underrepresented groups.
>> """
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. :) I agree.
>
> I was trying to retranscribe the fact that the person who made this
> proposal (me, actually) finds it too restrictive to solely involve more
> people who identify as women. (While there are many more
> underrepresented groups and possible gender (non)identifications.)
>
>> Please, do not take this email in the wrong sense. I am not picky
>> about the language used and I am perfectly okay with the text in the
>> original email. I also don't want to complicate things in the name of
>> linguistic or political correctness or anything like that. I just
>> wanted to point out that, from the overall context of Debian, Debian
>> Women and this mailing list, the original text did not have to be
>> understood as a rejection of males. At least that's my point of view,
>> of course. Others might think differently.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Ulrike
>
Reply to: