weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/14/88)
In article <56436@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid (Chuq Von Rospach) writes about a last-minute filibuster against comp.women by Rick Adams and Greg Woods. I don't know how much of this to believe. In private e-mail to me, Greg said he'd go along with the final vote, along with some other stuff that makes all of the above exceedingly hard to believe. I will forward this particular e-mail to the backbone mail- ing list, unless Greg claims that the above assertions of Chuq's are so much stuff and nonsense. I wouldn't know about Rick. He has never backed up his bald assertion that all his comp.all,!soc.* neighbors will refuse comp.women. Belief is more important than evidence sometimes. I guess. Sigh. >This sucks. Yes. > I also suggest heavily that in the future, backbone policy >decisions be done in public, where the are at least minimally accountable. How about a moderated news.backbone, as a gateway to the mailing list? Hell, why doesn't Gene just newgroup comp.women, so we'll all just *SEE* who issues a rmgroup, and who listens to whom already, instead of these constant proofs by speaking very loudly that all of us have engaged in? It should be bloody good fun. Speaking for the soft underbelly of the net, ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (06/15/88)
Some people have pointed out that there were 160 "no" votes for
comp.women. Correct. But there were also 272 "yes" votes -- from
people who felt the naming issue wasn't important enough to
keep from creating the group. Seems to me that 272 > 160, hmmm?
272 is an a lot of people to express an opinion, too.
Some people holler about the "content" of comp.women not being
appropriate. They aren't the final judge of appropriateness (if anyone
is). There is a significant percentage of netters who believe
comp.women, as proposed, is appropriate for the comp hierarchy. Again,
over 270 people who expressed their opinions felt that the group was
appropriate enough in comp (or that the issue didn't matter).
Furthermore, how can people complain about the "content" when
the group hasn't even been created yet?
Some people think there is a naming problem...that groups like
comp.edu, comp.risks, comp.women, comp.org....shouldn't go
in comp. Others think they should be under a common subheading
like "comp.society". Many think they are fine as is. Some
don't care. There is hardly a clear consensus to this, and
trying to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction could take
months.
Meanwhile, the comp.women group gets held hostage because people
are so terribly concerned about the name of the group...or so
they claim. I'm sure most of the people who object on grounds
of the name are upset about exactly that. The rest are probably
upset because the vote didn't go their way, and because the
majority of netters expressing an opinion didn't agree with them.
Right now we have about 4 camps in the backbone group:
* one group wants to go ahead and create comp.women then
deal with renaming issues as a separate action -- renaming
comp.risks, comp.edu, comp.women, etc all at once, if
needed, and rename the binary groups, etc.
Only two people have expressed this opinion so far,
myself included.
* one group is hell-bent on preventing any group with comp.women's
charter from ever appearing in the comp hierarchy, no matter
what. They want only "technical" groups and "technical"
discussions (like the discussion of sandals in comp.org.usenix,
for instance). I count one backbone admin being very rude,
plus one other in this group so far.
* one group will not accept comp.women as a name, but they
want the group created...someday, somewhere. They want to discuss
alternative names, conduct polls, and generally delay for
an indeterminate amount of time. Others in this category
have pre-emptively set up local name aliases for the group
so that if it gets created there will be no uniform name
throughout the net. This group numbers at least 4 so far.
* The last group hasn't voiced an opinion yet, and perhaps
just doesn't care. That's about 35 people.
So, the question is what happens from here. I don't know.
Rick Adams has threatened to start a "rmgroup war" if
*anyone* (myself and other backbone admins included) issues
any "newgroups" for comp.women. One other admin has indicated
he will recompile his news so that automatic newsgroup creation
requests will be disabled.
I'm not going to issue a "newgroup" on comp.women because it will just
cause problems. I also am unlikely to list it in the active groups
list or the checkgroups message I post, because a "rmgroup" war would
be a disaster for the net, and I don't want a couple of children to
disrupt things further. Bob Webber at his worst caused less
confusion than this, altho he tried :-)
Obviously, I'm pissed. I'm also in the minority on the backbone at the
moment, it seems. I think the vote was clear, the name is close enough
for the time being, and there is a very able moderator in place to
ensure appropriate postings. The whole issue of naming needs to be
addressed at once instead of piecemeal and unfairly targetting this one
group. Further, the group is desired by a significant number of
people, even if named comp.women, and it shouldn't be held hostage by a
few admins who are upset that the vote didn't go their way, and
because the charter of comp.women doesn't fit their idea of "comp." A
discussion of appropriate naming could take months, and it isn't fair
to the moderator or the people who voted "yes" to not create the group
while that is going on.
The Usenet used to be a fun place. It also used to be a friendly,
cooperative environment. I used to enjoy it. Now we have people who
are willing to disrupt the whole net because other people have a
different conception of "comp" than they do. They are ignoring the
wishes of a clear majority of netters expressing an opinion, and
they're willing to be quite rude about it. They think the naming
scheme is so clearcut and perfect that they're willing to do
anything to "preserve" it against this "threat."
I've had to endure a lot of abuse and irrationality from people simply
because I have volunteered to keep the lists and try to bring some
order to things. Now I'm getting abuse and frothing-at-the-mouth
behavior from some of the backbone admins I always thought were
reasonable folks. Either they're out of line, or I am, and I don't
know which. If it's me, however, I'm packing up my postings,
unsubscribing from news.all, rmgrouping news.announce.newusers, and
dropping off the net -- if I'm that far off the beam, then I can't
do the job properly anymore and it's time to fade away. What the
other 35 or so "silent" backbone admins have to say will tell
me if I'm the one who's lost it.
I hope that helps explain Chuq's posting.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafwayne@dsndata.UUCP (Wayne Schlitt) (06/15/88)
I, for one, voted no to this group. I did not (and still dont) think that name comp.women was appropriate. A lot of people agreed with me. A lot of people didn't. The vote was taken and, as per the rules, there were over 100 more yes votes than no votes so the group should be created. The margin may have been small, but that just goes to show that every vote counts. I would be very disappointed if this group got vetoed. This is not a "junk" group, it's not stupid or useless. I may not like the name, but a group like this should exist and a lot of people seem to think the name is fine. Just like any other news group, if you REALLY dont want it, NO ONE is forcing you to accept it. Maybe someday the name will be changed but that will have to be another battle... Create the group and get it over with. enough is enough. let's move on to something more important. -- Wayne Schlitt | Design Data Corporation hplabs!hpfcla ----------\ | 1033 "O" St. Suite 324 ncar!handel!hpfcla ------>---> !dsndata!wayne | Lincoln Ne, 68508 ihnp4!upba -------------/ | (402) 476-8278
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (06/15/88)
> So, the question is what happens from here. I don't know. > Rick Adams has threatened to start a "rmgroup war" if > *anyone* (myself and other backbone admins included) issues > any "newgroups" for comp.women. One other admin has indicated > he will recompile his news so that automatic newsgroup creation > requests will be disabled. Acutally, taking context into account, the exact threat was that if Spafford unilaterally, without first obtaining some sort of concensus of the "backbone", issued a newgroup, I would immediately issue an rmgroup until the issue was settled. Quite a bit different from the original quote eh? I'm still waiting for the answer to two simple questions: 1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such? Are women the only ones with these problems? If not, why exclude the others. 2) Is this problem unique to the computer industry. If not, why not sci.women or soc.wgas The proponents of comp.women continually dodge these simple questions. This to me implys that they can't make a case for it. Any answers not directly addressing those fundamental questions are irrelevant to the discussion. The group could exist TODAY as comp.society.women or soc.women.computers, so this absurd claim that the very idea of the group is opposed is total nonsense. The only basic argument has been the name. All other discussion clouds the basic issue.
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (06/15/88)
In article <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >I'm still waiting for the answer to two simple questions: Both have been answered in postings and mail before. Either you haven't been reading that material or you have a short memory. Let me briefly answer them for you again (I'm not going to recreate all of the discussions): > 1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such? > Are women the only ones with these problems? If not, > why exclude the others. The group is not primarily for discussion of discrimination. The moderator has said that. There have been lists of topics posted that would be appropriate and interesting to discuss in the group once created that have nothing to do with discrimination. Some examples: How to encourage more women to enter the computing field? How do we encourage a higher percentage of women to go on for PhDs in the field? Are there certain kinds of areas in CS that women are predisposed to, either due to social or other reasons? (example, developing computer languages, AI work, ...?) Why aren't there more women hackers? Why aren't there more female backbone admins? Safety for pregnant women in computing occupations... (some studies seem to indicate a higher rate of miscarriages with VDT use) Can flextime and work-at-home schemes work well when raising kids? (Question for both spouses, actually) What to do about harassment on the job and on the net. Why do so many netters think the name of comp.women is more important than the content? Do professional organizations like IEEE-CS and ACM show appropriate amounts and types of support for women's issues in computing? Ergonometrics and design issues from a female point of view...(ex. does the choice of the command name "man" instead of "help" imply something? Does it matter?) ...and the list goes on. Trish can supply more, as can most of the people who have been saying all along that: 1) the group will discuss computing related issues; and 2) the group is not primarily intended to talk about discrimination (although it will be difficult to avoid completely since discrimination is so pervasive even in our profession). > 2) Is this problem unique to the computer industry. If not, > why not sci.women or soc.wgas What problem? If you mean discrimination, the answer is no. If you mean all of the above topics plus the others that have already been mentioned, then your question is nonsense. In the context of WHY you asked the question, it is meaningless. And what is wgas? >The proponents of comp.women continually dodge these simple questions. >This to me implys [sic] that they can't make a case for it. No one has dodged these questions. You've missed, forgotten, or ignored the postings and mail that addressed these earlier. >Any answers not directly addressing those fundamental questions >are irrelevant to the discussion. Irrelevant to you, Rick. Does this posting answer your questions satisfactorily? >The group could exist TODAY as comp.society.women or soc.women.computers, >so this absurd claim that the very idea of the group is opposed is >total nonsense. The only basic argument has been the name. If you'll look back over the list of topics I have above and that others have posted, you'll see that many (most?) are **NOT SOCIAL ISSUES**! The moderator has said that repeatedly as have many, many others (myself included). soc.* is totally inappropriate and comp.society is not completely appropriate for these topics since they are not all social issues. ...and the moderator will not allow discussions of sandals or college pranks in the group, unlike some other "comp" groups currently accepted by the majority, so it may be even *more* appropriate than many current groups. BTW, for those of you concerned about keep "comp" for "technical" groups only: Webster's Unabridged dictionary defines technical to be about or concerned with topics specific to and peculiar to an art or science. As I just explained, the group would have topics related specifically to computing and computer science. Thus, the group would certainly be "technical" in nature. Now could we please create the group and move on to arguing over what the hell to do with the binary groups? -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/16/88)
In article <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >Acutally, taking context into account, the exact threat was that >if Spafford unilaterally, without first obtaining some sort of >concensus of the "backbone", issued a newgroup, I would immediately >issue an rmgroup until the issue was settled. > >Quite a bit different from the original quote eh? Nope. Every other time a vote had been completed, Gene or Greg Woods IMMEDIATELY, without the approval of all the backbone admins, sent out the newgroup message. Your unilateral threat seems to be holding things up. >I'm still waiting for the answer to two simple questions: > > 1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such? Because we voted on it. There is precedent for it: the uk.wic group (women in computing). Why don't you go argue with the Brits about changing the charter for their group while you're at it? > Are women the only ones with these problems? If not, > why exclude the others. Because we voted on it. See above. > 2) Is this problem unique to the computer industry. If not, > why not sci.women or soc.wgas Because we voted on it. Newsgroups should address a specific area. Otherwise let's nuke everything except misc.misc. >The proponents of comp.women continually dodge these simple questions. >This to me implys that they can't make a case for it. We've discussed these questions for a month; haven't you been reading? >Any answers not directly addressing those fundamental questions >are irrelevant to the discussion. We've discussed it, and voted on it. >The group could exist TODAY as comp.society.women or soc.women.computers, >so this absurd claim that the very idea of the group is opposed is >total nonsense. The only basic argument has been the name. All other >discussion clouds the basic issue. I'd be happy with the name comp.society.women, and Trish says she'd have no problem with it either. But at this point, comp.women has been approved. So here's a proposal: 1) Create the group as voted on 2) Open up the floor for proposed name changes (comp.society.women has the best chance of passage). 3) If and when a new name is approved by the VOTERS (not by the backbone, but by the net as a whole), we change the name, by doing an rmgroup and a newgroup. Doing it this way will accomplish several things. We get the group as voted on, we preserve the integrity of the procedures we've set up, and in 30 days we'll probably end up with the name you want. I acknowledge the right of the backbone to refuse to carry any article. I do not acknowledge the right of any site to tamper with articles as they pass through, and installing an alias to turn an official name into an unofficial one is vandalism. So Rick, if you don't want to carry comp.women, don't. But don't go installing bogus aliases. No one's forcing you, and thanks to NNTP, if ZERO backbone sites carry the group and most other people do, it'll still spread all over the country. But if you start screwing around with group names because you personally don't like them, you'll wreck the net. Start acting like the servant of your customers, who are paying you for the service of providing news, instead of their lord. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
") (06/16/88)
I suggest that all backboners who are not women should disqualify themselves. Let the women who run backbone machines decide on whether to honor the vote and the promulgated rules. At the very least, ask them their opinion. Hello? Why is it so quiet?
wisner@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (06/16/88)
So, Rick, are you saying that if Trish agreed to name the group
comp.society.women, you would not object to a newgroup?
--
Bill Wisner
..!{ames,att,decwrl,ihnp4,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!wisnerbill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/16/88)
Spaf made himself quite clear, I can not comment on what he said other
than, as one individual, agree with him. Coincidentally, I voted no
based on naming and changed it when the din started but was still in the
no column when the polls closed, so be it.
I would like to point out that there's more at stake here than just
comp.women. The backbone is involved in a tussle which could result
in very real injury to the net. The ihnp4 thing pales by comparison.
Two of our most important contributors are steadfast on opposite ends
of the issue. There is no "right" "wrong" here, just a 100% pure
disagreement and if something isn't done the net *IS* going to get hurt.
We can't afford to disenfranchise (sp?) ourselves from them, nor to have
them do so from us. I would suggest binding arbitration but someone
would think it flippant.
The backbone has provisions to handle this but it appears to not be
working. If there are 35 of you who are being spectators, would you
please dive in and become participants? It's not Rick's or Spaf's
opinion/ego at stake, it's the net and the non-backbones who *can't*
participate. We did our part, we voted and the results are in. Would
you please do your part and rule on this? I can't conceive of Rick
or Spaf "refusing to play" if it didn't go their way, but apparently
it's not going anywhere. I don't blame either one of them for lathering
up, if not over the issue, then over the inertia. I would have emailed
them but I don't know who they are.
--
Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!billrsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (06/16/88)
==Rick Adams ==Acutally, taking context into account, the exact threat was that ==if Spafford unilaterally, without first obtaining some sort of ==concensus of the "backbone", issued a newgroup, I would immediately ==issue an rmgroup until the issue was settled. == ==Quite a bit different from the original quote eh? ..Joe Buck ..Nope. Every other time a vote had been completed, Gene or Greg Woods ..IMMEDIATELY, without the approval of all the backbone admins, sent ..out the newgroup message. Unh, Joe, how do you know that this is not the first time there hasn't been consensus? If the issue is highly divided, it seems well within the rights of one member of the backbone list to say that consensus hasn't been achieved. The wording on the my first sentence is tricky, hence the Followup line. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (06/16/88)
In article <2220@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >>I'm still waiting for the answer to two simple questions: >> >> 1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such? >Because we voted on it. >> Are women the only ones with these problems? If not, >> why exclude the others. >Because we voted on it. >> 2) Is this problem unique to the computer industry. If not, >> why not sci.women or soc.wgas >Because we voted on it. >>The proponents of comp.women continually dodge these simple questions. >>This to me implys that they can't make a case for it. >We've discussed these questions for a month; haven't you been >reading? >>Any answers not directly addressing those fundamental questions >>are irrelevant to the discussion. >We've discussed it, and voted on it. Sure, it's been discussed and voted to death. There is a basic fundamental flaw in our system however. That is, the name of what is being voted on is being settled too early in the process. We've discussed and voted into probable existance a newsgroup that has an extremely inappropriate name. [before this goes too far -- I can believe the newsgroup belongs under comp somewhere, and MOST of the backboners who have spoken up also believes it belongs under comp somewhere. Gene did manage to convince us of that. I STRONGLY believe it belongs a level down in the hierarchy somehow.] I am arguing (on the backbone list) that since it is a bad name that we need to come up with a better name for it before it gets created. The reason being that historically it has been very difficult to get a name changed properly. It requires a fair bit of cooperation -- something which the backbone hasn't been doing too much of lately -- and also requires non-buggy software at the majority of sites. AT THE SAME TIME OR VERY SOON THEREAFTER we need to start discussing various changes to the procedures. Chuq's comments need to also be taken into account and possibly a broader list of procedures should be written than just "How to create a newsgroup". -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- s.k.a.: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- A proud supporter of the Marcel Marceau Foundation <------ Because a mime is a terrible thing to waste
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (06/16/88)
I used to be one of those concientious SAs who read all of news.admin
and news.newgroups and all those other fun groups and kept track of what was
going on. Over the past few weeks I've done a full about face and turned
into one of those who-gives-a-shit SAs who can't be bothered to keep up with
what groups are being created and what groups aren't. Why the change of
heart? Mostly this comp.women garbage. I just absolutely can't believe that
*any* decision requires this much discussion; certainly not a decision as
trivial as whether to create a newsgroup or not. Come on guys; you're all
starting to sound like lawyers (or possibly worse) government officials.
Rule number one of running anything: when faced with a choice, make
up your mind and do it. A bad decision is almost always better than no
decision at all.
Personally, I don't think comp.women should be created (I do like the
comp.society.{risks,women,etc} idea). But, obviously 250 or so people
disagree with me and took the time to send in their votes. What more do we
need? A few years back I proposed rmgrouping net.general; I barely got 250
votes total! Create the damn group and get it on with your lives. What
difference could it possibly make one way or the other that's worth all this
screaming and yelling?
A suggestion: why don't all the involved parties just get together
at Usenix and duke it out; when you all get back, let us know how it turned
out and spare us any more public feuding. You know, for a while I was sad
that I wasn't going to be able to make this Usenix; if you guys follow my
advice and argue about comp.women there, at least I'll have some reason to
be glad I stayed away.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.netloci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (06/17/88)
In article <4350@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >In article <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >> 1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such? >> Are women the only ones with these problems? If not, >> why exclude the others. > >The group is not primarily for discussion of discrimination. The >moderator has said that. There have been lists of topics posted >that would be appropriate and interesting to discuss in the group >once created that have nothing to do with discrimination. Since I had missed the postings which described the potential topics, I am glad to see this summary. The posting of topics seems to be the most direct way to address the issues and I applaud this approach. >Some examples: > How to encourage more women to enter the computing field? > How do we encourage a higher percentage of women to go on > for PhDs in the field? What is the basis for these questions? It appears to pass over the question of intrinsic benefit: why is it desirable to encourage more women to enter the computing field? Why is it specifically women who need encouragement? It appears that these goals could be applied to most people so I begin to detect political motives when others are excluded. > Why aren't there more women hackers? > Why aren't there more female backbone admins? These questions are awfully artificial. Hackers choose to be hackers. There are no restrictions or requirements except desire. If women chose to use their time on other things, that's their choice. Aren't you grasping at straws to suggest that "female backbone admins" are desirable by virtue of their gender? > Safety for pregnant women in computing occupations... Now here's one I can support. This really is a topic which involves computing, is primarily a concern for women, and might belong. > Can flextime and work-at-home schemes work well when > raising kids? (Question for both spouses, actually) > What to do about harassment on the job and on the net. These issues aren't restricted to women. Everyone has some involvement in harassment, sometimes from women. This isn't a specific net problem. Why are we trying to artificially and selectively give women a pulpit? > Why do so many netters think the name of comp.women > is more important than the content? > Do professional organizations like IEEE-CS and ACM show > appropriate amounts and types of support for > women's issues in computing? > Ergonometrics and design issues from a female point of > view...(ex. does the choice of the command name "man" > instead of "help" imply something? Does it matter?) Let's just clear the air and say it: This is a politically motivated grab for attention. It assumes a negative thesus that things are bad, and that women suffer more than anyone from problems we all share. Why are so many netters bugged? It's easy to see through the rhetoric: I don't look at the name on postings, but content. If women don't call attention to the fact that they want to be harrassed, it won't happen. The real point is that the name "comp.women" generates hostility that we don't need. Everyone has quit listening, arguments are rampant and that's not good for the net or anyone else. > -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (06/18/88)
As the sort-of moderator (well, the original and current ARPA list anyhow) of the only group in comp.society (namely, .futures) I can't help but wonder what's wrong with comp.society.women etc, should *I* be protesting, dear me. I admit I haven't been following this conversation very closely (there are only 24 hrs in a day.) Actually, I've sort of enjoyed the exclusivity of that little niche, but hey, ya never quite know what the future has in store for you. -Barry Shein, Boston University
vnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James) (06/18/88)
In article <4350@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >In article <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >> 1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such? >> Are women the only ones with these problems? If not, >> why exclude the others. >The group is not primarily for discussion of discrimination. The >moderator has said that. There have been lists of topics posted >that would be appropriate and interesting to discuss in the group >once created that have nothing to do with discrimination. [Further down you say:] >If you'll look back over the list of topics I have above and that >others have posted, you'll see that many (most?) are **NOT SOCIAL >ISSUES**! The moderator has said that repeatedly as have many, many >others (myself included). soc.* is totally inappropriate and >comp.society is not completely appropriate for these topics since they >are not all social issues. >Some examples: > How to encourage more women to enter the computing field? Is a social issue. It involves looking at and altering societal view on professions and gender. > How do we encourage a higher percentage of women to go on > for PhDs in the field? Is a social issue, very simular to above. Replace women with any other group (even men) and it is still relevant. As a social issue. > Are there certain kinds of areas in CS that women are > predisposed to, either due to social or other reasons? > (example, developing computer languages, AI work, ...?) When the topic itself uses social reasons as a part of its definition... > Why aren't there more women hackers? Why arn't there more women Xs. Can you really say that this is not a social issue? > Why aren't there more female backbone admins? See last note. Anytime you ask why there arn't more Xs you are addressing a societal issue. > Safety for pregnant women in computing occupations... > (some studies seem to indicate a higher rate of > miscarriages with VDT use) Sounds like a comp.risks topic. This one *might* not be a societal issue. The first one so far. And the only one that is female specific. > Can flextime and work-at-home schemes work well when > raising kids? (Question for both spouses, actually) Raising kids isn't a vital part of society? > What to do about harassment on the job and on the net. This is both discrimination related and social. > Why do so many netters think the name of comp.women > is more important than the content? You threw this one in to trick us, right? > Do professional organizations like IEEE-CS and ACM show > appropriate amounts and types of support for > women's issues in computing? Again, both a discriminitory and a social issue. > Ergonometrics and design issues from a female point of > view...(ex. does the choice of the command name "man" > instead of "help" imply something? Does it matter?) Other than your example being facitious, this is the second legitimate topic given, but even it is not female specific. How about the ergonomics and design issues from the point of view of those outside the norm for hieght (short and tall), wieght ( computing is a sendientary (or however you spell it) profession, how about those of us who are having trouble using our terminals because of the wieght we are putting on?), or anything else outside a supposed norm? >...and the list goes on. Trish can supply more, as can most of >the people who have been saying all along that: > 1) the group will discuss computing related issues; and > 2) the group is not primarily intended to talk about > discrimination (although it will be difficult to avoid completely > since discrimination is so pervasive even in our profession). Though you managed to score 1.5 I'm not convinced. There was a relationship to computers, yes, but most of what you listed as possible topics were *society related*, and not usually specific to either women or computers. And most of them related heavily to discrimination. -- Later y'all, {vnend@engr, cn0001dj@ukcc, mc.david@ukpr}.uky.edu; Vnend: Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure. {any vertibrae}!ukma!ukecc!vnend "Of course they can't shoot it down, the shows name is "Airwolf", not "Antiaircraft Gun!"