Open Stack

+1 for keeping it as open and accessible as possible. I have said in the
past how a room full of women is no more diverse than a room full of men,
though I do understand the desire to have groups of all one gender or the
other in certain situations. Given the relatively few number of women in
tech and how we were not even 10% of the Vancouver summit population, we
need as many advocates as we can find to take up the cause of diversity of
thought through different genders and cultures. Making it as simple as
possibly to our male and female advocates and champions to find us and
interact with us seems like a great start.

As for trolling, I do worry about it, but also don't like making decisions
based on what might happen. Additional administrative overhead won't stop
the trolls and it adds extra work to the channel leaders. In fact, having
such a policy could actually attract more trolls. If they know there is an
open channel that makes you agree to something to stay, they might seek it
out for a cheap thrill knowing they can get a reaction easily.

#openstack-opw makes a lot of sense to keep it simple. We could also
consider -wos (*W*omen [of] *O*pen*S*tack, acryonymFinder
<http://www.acronymfinder.com/WOS.html>), but I do love -woo!

Merrian-Webster defines *woo* as "to try to attract (someone, such as a
customer, voter, worker, etc.) : to attempt to persuade (someone) to buy
something from you, vote for you, work for you, etc." Seems like part of
our goal might be to attract and persuade more women to join the community?

In the Clifton StrengthsFinder
<http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/721/woo.aspx>, "WOO" is an acronym
for "winning others over" and is all about getting to know people and
making sure strangers don't remain so for long. I think it is also very
fitting for Women of OpenStack.

(Disclaimer, WOO is in my top 10 strengths so I think it's just peachy!)


Rainya
210.316.5065
*Not all of us can save the world. Some of us have to make it worth saving.
- RFM*

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Courtney Ferry <cferry at carpathia.com> wrote:

>  I'll add one more voice for keeping it open.  Preemptively excluding
> anyone smacks too much of the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish.
>
>
>  Rocky's idea of using an acronym instead of –women is also pretty good,
> just to keep down trolls searching for a dating channel.  I know the name
> of the group has changed, but since the –opw already exists, how about we
> just use it to save the hassle?
>
>  Regarding logging, it looks to be required by the foundation.  "All
> OpenStack related channels shall be logged and made publicly accessible and
> attempts to notify channel users of that fact shall be undertaken."
> http://governance.openstack.org/reference/irc.html
>
>  Susie mentioned needing documentation.  I wrote a good bit of the "how
> to use IRC" wiki page for my office, so I already have a lot of material.
> I'd be glad to help.
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  C-
>
>   From: Rochelle Grober <rochelle.grober at huawei.com>
> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 4:20 PM
> To: Anne Gentle <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>, "Gray, Susie" <
> susie.gray at hp.com>
> Cc: "women-of-openstack at lists.openstack.org" <
> women-of-openstack at lists.openstack.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [Women-of-openstack] IRC channel followup from working
> breakfast.
>
>    I’m in agreement with Anne.  I don’t know how much trolling happens on
> OpenStack channels, but I don’t think it’s a lot.  That said, there is a
> higher likelihood of trolling on a channel identifying itself as for
> women.  Maybe we should consider a little lower profile such as
> #openstack-woo.  Put info in the mailing list, the wikis, etc.
>
>
>
> I would not like to limit the channel to just women.  If men are
> interested in our problems/solutions/discussions, they should be free to
> participate.  As long as they agree to and abide by the terms of
> participation.  I participated in the training session for women in tech
> dealing with trolling and other issues and it was heavily male, and
> extremely sympathetic and supportive of reducing the problems encountered
> by women in tech.  They can have valuable insight into defusing situations
> and supporting us in handling situations.
>
>
>
> On the issue of keeping a record of the channel, I’m undecided.  I lean
> towards not recording the channel, but if someone has a good argument for
> it, I can easily be swayed.
>
>
>
> My 2 cents.
>
>
>
> --Rocky
>
>
>
> *From:* Anne Gentle [mailto:annegentle at justwriteclick.com
> <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 31, 2015 19:27
> *To:* Gray, Susie
> *Cc:* women-of-openstack at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Women-of-openstack] IRC channel followup from working
> breakfast.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Gray, Susie <susie.gray at hp.com> wrote:
>
> Hey y'all
>
> So I pretty much found out straight away that the "rules" for channels we
> manage on freenode should allow us to have a private channel as it's for a
> "diversity type" reason.
>
>
>
> Hi Susie,
>
> Well... but the TC just passed a resolution to prevent private IRC
> channels. [1] I'd like to see us agreeing to that guidance.
>
>
>
> I was going to propose we use the existing open #openstack-opw channel,
> which we use for the Outreach Program for Women, now named Outreachy. Since
> -opw isn't the name of the program any more, we could rename the channel
> #openstack-women.
>
>
>
> I've talked to people who run channels with a requirement upon entry of
> answering the question in the affirmative, "Do you agree to our terms (with
> a link to the terms)?" If someone doesn't answer or hedges, then they are
> kicked. If they still come back, but won't agree to the terms, they are
> banned. Thing is, that turns into a trollbait channel and you have to have
> 24x7 coverage to ask and if you don't get the answer you need, to kick,
> then ban the person who won't agree to the terms. I'm not sure we need that
> level of filter.
>
>
>
> My proposal would be to re-use the existing #openstack-opw channel,
> renaming to #openstack-women (keeping with some other patterns in open
> source [2]), and keeping it public. We should also decide if an agreement
> upon entry is the way we want to go with this to help with the goal of
> ensuring the channel remains open but with known goals for interaction.
>
>
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> 1. http://governance.openstack.org/reference/irc.html
>
> 2. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/IRC
>
>
>
>
> Technically I've found a person with admin rights who is willing to help
> set this up. I'm happy to help with any maintenance if there is any also. I
> think it should also be non-logged to add to it being a "safe-space" for us
> to just chat.
>
> We will also need volunteers to write up some documentation with links to
> websites which are appropriate to 000 baby/completely non technical folk in
> order to help them get set up and running. A lot of the technology us
> techies take for granted is very very scary to non-technical people and we
> need to support all our colleagues not just the techies.
>
> Currently I was told we needed to run this past the foundation and get it
> okayed before going ahead. I am not aware of who to speak to or how this
> needs to be approached. Can the organisers help with this please?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -grue-
>
> _______________________________________________
> Women-of-openstack mailing list
> Women-of-openstack at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/women-of-openstack
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Anne Gentle
> annegentle at justwriteclick.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Women-of-openstack mailing list
> Women-of-openstack at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/women-of-openstack
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/women-of-openstack/attachments/20150601/9a637969/attachment.html>