editors: Thread: Re: Review needed of 'Encourage Women in Linux' HOWTO

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:55:15PM -0500, Raymond wrote:
>
> To this end I have volunteered on the editors list (mailto:
> ####@####.#### to review this document.

Thank you, Raymond.  I have read the "Linux Documentation Project
Reviewer HOWTO" (good work, as usual, Joy) and found that the
following three types of review exist:

1. Peer Review - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/peerreview.html

   This type of review occurs prior to publication.  This HOWTO has
   already been published.

2. Technical Accuracy Review - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/techreview.html

   I quote:

   "Make sure the facts as stated in the document are correct,
   helpful, and on topic.  To do a technical accuracy review, you
   really need to know your subject matter, probably as well or better
   than the original author."

3. Language Review - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/languagereview.html

   This type of review addresses "poor sentence structure, grammar,
   organization, clarity, and spelling."

Please let us know which kind of review you are doing.  If you are
doing a Technical Accuracy Review, please inform us of your
qualifications in the area of encouraging women in Linux.  The
authors of the HOWTO are listed here:

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x28.html#AEN66

Some of my personal qualifications to write about this subject can be
found on my home page:

http://www.nmt.edu/~val

A quick summary of my qualifications:
 - Former full-time Linux developer
 - Active volunteer for LinuxChix
 - Member of Systers mailing list
 - Frequent attendee at women in computing conferences
 - Host of LinuxChix BoF at Ottawa Linux Symposium two years running
 - Well read in the area (as demonstrated by references in the HOWTO)
 - Member of the program committee of Sun's women in engineering group

> I suggest a even number of male/female reviewers that can work
> amongst themselves and submit the results as a group to the LDP.

I believe the motivation behind this suggestion is to provide a
"gender-balanced" review committee.  However, mere numerical equality
will not produce the desired results.  Three sexist men and three
sexist women will still produce a sexist review (as will six sexist
women and six sexist men - whoa, cool tongue-twister!).

I believe that the reviewers should be people who are qualified to
review the HOWTO as described above, regardless of gender.  I look
forward to the review comments.

-VAL

I'm going to provide my feedback, and then we can see what you'd like to
do from there.  I have some reviewers who've spent years in the real
world editing for book publishers and corporations who are qualified to
perform such a review.

On that note, I've read the HOWTO in full, twice, and here are my
recommendations:

1.  Rather than DOs and DON'Ts, which may sound too authoritative (and I
know there was an explanation for their use, but regardless...) you
might be better served writing SHOULDs and SHOULDN'Ts.  This implies you
are not telling anyone what to do, particularly for those who feel they
don't do those things (and yes, I realize you addressed that too, but I
really think it would help the overall tone).

2.  Gather some feedback from men and women.  Perhaps another section -
an appendix.  Maybe some examples from women of specific instances, and
then responses from "enlightened" men to deal with these issues more
effectively.  This can give the men a feeling of positive contribution,
and using specific instances as examples can go a long way in teaching
"unenlightened" men the more politically-correct responses when
confronted with these situations.  

(I think just the SHOULD/SHOULDN'T vs. the DO/DON'T may go a long way in
toning down the authoritative voice.)

3.  I do agree with your references and generalizations on how
differently men and women perceive themselves and are perceived by
others.  I know you've already put a great deal of research into this,
and I don't think that there's any "factual" errors.  It would be nice
to see some more up-to-date examples, if you can find some.

Perhaps you could use the idea of a men/women problem/resolution
scenario in choosing reviewers.  Maybe we should find a couple women and
a couple men to work on this?  With the inclusion of such a section (#3)
this would be a feasible reason to have more review involvement, but
beyond that, I think just the tweaks I mentioned will make a positive
impact on the work, and not take away from the meaning.

I'll leave you with those thoughts while I continue to catch up on
mail.  

Val, let me know what you think of these ideas.  I'd appreciate your
thoughts, since it IS your work, and I want to make sure I'm not way off
base with my suggestions.

Thanks,
Tab


On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 17:47, Val Henson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:55:15PM -0500, Raymond wrote:
> >
> > To this end I have volunteered on the editors list (mailto:
> > ####@####.#### to review this document.
> 
> Thank you, Raymond.  I have read the "Linux Documentation Project
> Reviewer HOWTO" (good work, as usual, Joy) and found that the
> following three types of review exist:
> 
> 1. Peer Review - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/peerreview.html
> 
>    This type of review occurs prior to publication.  This HOWTO has
>    already been published.
> 
> 2. Technical Accuracy Review - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/techreview.html
> 
>    I quote:
> 
>    "Make sure the facts as stated in the document are correct,
>    helpful, and on topic.  To do a technical accuracy review, you
>    really need to know your subject matter, probably as well or better
>    than the original author."
> 
> 3. Language Review - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/languagereview.html
> 
>    This type of review addresses "poor sentence structure, grammar,
>    organization, clarity, and spelling."
> 
> Please let us know which kind of review you are doing.  If you are
> doing a Technical Accuracy Review, please inform us of your
> qualifications in the area of encouraging women in Linux.  The
> authors of the HOWTO are listed here:
> 
> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x28.html#AEN66
> 
> Some of my personal qualifications to write about this subject can be
> found on my home page:
> 
> http://www.nmt.edu/~val
> 
> A quick summary of my qualifications:
>  - Former full-time Linux developer
>  - Active volunteer for LinuxChix
>  - Member of Systers mailing list
>  - Frequent attendee at women in computing conferences
>  - Host of LinuxChix BoF at Ottawa Linux Symposium two years running
>  - Well read in the area (as demonstrated by references in the HOWTO)
>  - Member of the program committee of Sun's women in engineering group
> 
> > I suggest a even number of male/female reviewers that can work
> > amongst themselves and submit the results as a group to the LDP.
> 
> I believe the motivation behind this suggestion is to provide a
> "gender-balanced" review committee.  However, mere numerical equality
> will not produce the desired results.  Three sexist men and three
> sexist women will still produce a sexist review (as will six sexist
> women and six sexist men - whoa, cool tongue-twister!).
> 
> I believe that the reviewers should be people who are qualified to
> review the HOWTO as described above, regardless of gender.  I look
> forward to the review comments.
> 
> -VAL
-- 
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)

Tabatha Marshall wrote:

>I'm going to provide my feedback, and then we can see what you'd like to
>do from there.  I have some reviewers who've spent years in the real
>world editing for book publishers and corporations who are qualified to
>perform such a review.
>
It's fine with me if third party reviewers take this on. I hope your are 
not suggesting
any treatment of this document that anybody else's document would not 
get though.
Any review should be done in an impartial manner--no special treatment.

>
>On that note, I've read the HOWTO in full, twice, and here are my
>recommendations:
>
>1.  Rather than DOs and DON'Ts, which may sound too authoritative (and I
>know there was an explanation for their use, but regardless...) you
>might be better served writing SHOULDs and SHOULDN'Ts.  This implies you
>are not telling anyone what to do, particularly for those who feel they
>don't do those things (and yes, I realize you addressed that too, but I
>really think it would help the overall tone).
>  
>
I agree that it would help the tone. Unfortunately, this kind of section 
does not belong
in an LDP document. The issues dealt with are of a sociological nature, 
which is by all
accounts a larger issues beyond the scope of Linux. To quote Plato "Good 
people do not
need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a 
way around the laws."
It seems to me that the intention is good--give proper respect to women. 
The effort is
misplaced--these issues can only be dealt with effectively in another 
context.

>2.  Gather some feedback from men and women.  Perhaps another section -
>an appendix.  Maybe some examples from women of specific instances, and
>then responses from "enlightened" men to deal with these issues more
>effectively.  This can give the men a feeling of positive contribution,
>and using specific instances as examples can go a long way in teaching
>"unenlightened" men the more politically-correct responses when
>confronted with these situations.  
>
>(I think just the SHOULD/SHOULDN'T vs. the DO/DON'T may go a long way in
>toning down the authoritative voice.)
>
>3.  I do agree with your references and generalizations on how
>differently men and women perceive themselves and are perceived by
>others.  I know you've already put a great deal of research into this,
>and I don't think that there's any "factual" errors.  It would be nice
>to see some more up-to-date examples, if you can find some.
>  
>
There is actually a glaring factual error near the beginning of this 
document. The
assumption is taken that the way people behave is primarily due to their 
environment
(nurture) and that anything intrinsic(nature) is insignificant. This is 
definitely not
backed up by scientific research.

Research on twins separated at birth(both male and female) once brought 
together
years later shows that they have uncanny similarities in some parts of 
their personalities,
as well as their own particular attitudes and habits. The use of twins 
in psychological
and medical research is an acid test for the existence of genetically 
based behavior.
Check for yourself.

This factual error, with respect to current science, along with other 
opinions expressed
near the beginning brings the whole document into question. Why? It is 
not reasonable
to use this premise and shows faulty research.

>Perhaps you could use the idea of a men/women problem/resolution
>scenario in choosing reviewers.  Maybe we should find a couple women and
>a couple men to work on this?  With the inclusion of such a section (#3)
>this would be a feasible reason to have more review involvement, but
>beyond that, I think just the tweaks I mentioned will make a positive
>impact on the work, and not take away from the meaning.
>
>I'll leave you with those thoughts while I continue to catch up on
>mail.  
>
>Val, let me know what you think of these ideas.  I'd appreciate your
>thoughts, since it IS your work, and I want to make sure I'm not way off
>base with my suggestions.
>
So it IS her work. And?

I get the gist that this is supposed give it some higher value. Correct 
me if I am wrong.
You know there are many books in any library. Does that automatically 
mean they have
earned some kind of stature? Some of those books are crap and some are 
works of art.

I recently did a book review for the Canadian Association of Physicists 
on a book
written by one of my university professors. Guess what. It was poorly 
written. And
I said so. The work was less than acceptable for a person with his 
experience and
education. I call them like I see them. As well as doing book reviews 
for my
professional organization, I have also been working with a professional 
translator
for over five years assisting, off and on, with language revisions and 
terminology.
Just a bit of the credentials I have that enable me to do one little 
document review.

Tabatha, if you manage to find others to do the review I am fine with 
that. Else
I'll have to go it alone--no other volunteers as of yet from the list. 
I'll postpone
starting on that for a while.

Raymond: Martin

[Redirecting Raymond's reply to my first email back to the editors list.]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 10:16:11PM -0500, Raymond wrote:
> 
> Val Henson wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:55:15PM -0500, Raymond wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>To this end I have volunteered on the editors list (mailto:
> ####@####.#### to review this document.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >Thank you, Raymond.  I have read the "Linux Documentation Project
> >Reviewer HOWTO" (good work, as usual, Joy) and found that the
> >following three types of review exist:
> >
> I do not know why you are telling me something I already know. If 
> anybody wants to know this they
> can find it on the LDP site before they decide to participate in a review.
> 
> Another thing. It is pretty hard to say what type of review this 
> document deserves by the few choices
> given. A peer review has been done. The language review is not relevant. 
> And a technical review
> does not seem relevant either--the document is mainly about sociological 
> gender issues that just
> happen to be related to Linux. They could be related to any sphere of 
> activity. There does not seem to
> be any direct technical issues involved. If there were another type of 
> review for 'context' that might
> be the way to go. As it stands, it is hard to see how this document got 
> past peer review without
> someone bringing up some point about the way it is written or its purpose.
> 
> >http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x28.html#AEN66
> >
> >Some of my personal qualifications to write about this subject can be
> >found on my home page:
> >
> >http://www.nmt.edu/~val
> >
> >A quick summary of my qualifications:
> >- Former full-time Linux developer
> >- Active volunteer for LinuxChix
> >- Member of Systers mailing list
> >- Frequent attendee at women in computing conferences
> >- Host of LinuxChix BoF at Ottawa Linux Symposium two years running
> >- Well read in the area (as demonstrated by references in the HOWTO)
> >- Member of the program committee of Sun's women in engineering group
> > 
> >
> You may have some experience to write from, but that does not mean that 
> you are unbiased.
> All this you are writing here is coercion meant to sway people towards 
> your view instead of
> letting them use their own power of reason to make fair assessments. So 
> please stop. In fact,
> this is part of the reason I posted in the first place. It was clearly 
> obvious from your writing
> that your view is skewed and that is exactly what is wrong. Don't give 
> me anymore of that
> 'I have to make sweeping generlizations as long as sexism exists' 
> justification. I'm not buying
> it. Saying things like that is just propaganda. Exactly in the vain of 
> what is not needed in any
> LDP document.
> 
> > 
> >
> >>I suggest a even number of male/female reviewers that can work
> >>amongst themselves and submit the results as a group to the LDP.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >I believe the motivation behind this suggestion is to provide a
> >"gender-balanced" review committee.  However, mere numerical equality
> >will not produce the desired results.  Three sexist men and three
> >sexist women will still produce a sexist review (as will six sexist
> >women and six sexist men - whoa, cool tongue-twister!).
> > 
> >
> It does not seem to matter how fair I try to be. You will find a way to 
> twist my words. Which
> is exactly how you have twisted ideas in the document to fit your ends.
> 
> >I believe that the reviewers should be people who are qualified to
> >review the HOWTO as described above, regardless of gender.  I look
> >forward to the review comments.
> >
> >-VAL
> >
> > 
> >
> Who could possibly live up to what you would accept? How can anybody be 
> absolutely
> sure someone is qualified to do a lot of things? You cannot. There are 
> no absolutes. There
> is a little bit of uncertainty in everything. People still work writing 
> and reviewing documents
> regardless of the need for absolute qualifications by some else's 
> measures alone. Isn't that
> how you wrote the document in the first place? Who appointed you to 
> write it. You.
> Who decided you had enough qualifications to write it. You did.
> 
> Well, fair is fair. If I want to start a review I am certainly free to 
> try. Do I have to write
> a book before I can do a book review. No. High school students do it all 
> the time.
> 
> Now, again, please everyone let's just review this and make something 
> better of it.
> 
> And let's stop posting about this until there is some main point to make.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Contact me if you are interested in participating in this review.
> 
> Raymond: Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/

Hi Tabatha,

Thanks for your comments!  I especially like your recommendation for
examples of use the HOWTO's advice in real situations.  If you or
anyone else can collect examples, I would appreciate that greatly.

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 07:20:00PM -0800, Tabatha Marshall wrote:

> 1.  Rather than DOs and DON'Ts, which may sound too authoritative (and I

This is a tough problem, and I've been unable to come up with any
solution better than the Don't/Do format.  Unfortunately, the women I
have talked to have many more requests for specific Don't's than
Do's.  I'll take your Should/Shouldn't proposal into consideration.

> 2.  Gather some feedback from men and women.  Perhaps another section -

Since the HOWTO already has feedback from men and women (check out the
LinuxChix mailing list archives), I'm uncertain as to exactly what you
are proposing...

> 3.  I do agree with your references and generalizations on how
> differently men and women perceive themselves and are perceived by
> others.  I know you've already put a great deal of research into this,
> and I don't think that there's any "factual" errors.  It would be nice
> to see some more up-to-date examples, if you can find some.

Funny you should mention that!  I have three unread books on women and
computing, socialization, leadership, business, etc. sitting on my
table.  I'm partway through "Women Don't Ask" right now, which is just
chock full of recent examples.  Your advice is quite timely.

> Perhaps you could use the idea of a men/women problem/resolution
> scenario in choosing reviewers.

I'm afraid you lost me here.  What are you proposing, exactly?

Are you saying I get to choose reviewers? :)

> Val, let me know what you think of these ideas.  I'd appreciate your
> thoughts, since it IS your work, and I want to make sure I'm not way off
> base with my suggestions.

I appreciate your ideas and think they will help change the HOWTO for
the better.  Thanks!

-VAL

On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 22:52, Raymond wrote:
> Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> 
> >I'm going to provide my feedback, and then we can see what you'd like to
> >do from there.  I have some reviewers who've spent years in the real
> >world editing for book publishers and corporations who are qualified to
> >perform such a review.
> >
> It's fine with me if third party reviewers take this on. I hope your are 
> not suggesting
> any treatment of this document that anybody else's document would not 
> get though.
> Any review should be done in an impartial manner--no special treatment.

Actually I'm referring to LDP reviewers who have recently joined the
team.  We come from similar backgrounds.  My own history is highly
customer service-oriented in many different industries, including the
task of writing documents to specific audiences.  

I've gone over Val's HOWTO from a stricly editorial standpoint, and have
stated in my previous email what I believe the document requires to be
considered up to date, based on both my own conclusions and the
constructive feedback provided by the discussion list.  I've asked Emily
Moon, a recent addition to our review team, to take a look at the HOWTO
and provide her comments, and I await her response, and will also be
requesting feedback from a male reviewer, for objectivity.

I believe Val's HOWTO has a clearly defined the scope, and addresses her
audience explicitly. 

> >1.  Rather than DOs and DON'Ts, which may sound too authoritative (and I
> >know there was an explanation for their use, but regardless...) you
> >might be better served writing SHOULDs and SHOULDN'Ts.  This implies you
> >are not telling anyone what to do, particularly for those who feel they
> >don't do those things (and yes, I realize you addressed that too, but I
> >really think it would help the overall tone).
> >  
> I agree that it would help the tone. Unfortunately, this kind of section 
> does not belong
> in an LDP document. The issues dealt with are of a sociological nature, 
> which is by all
> accounts a larger issues beyond the scope of Linux. To quote Plato "Good 
> people do not
> need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a 
> way around the laws."
> It seems to me that the intention is good--give proper respect to women. 
> The effort is
> misplaced--these issues can only be dealt with effectively in another 
> context.

I've mentioned in a previous message that I haven't really had any
issues with finding a way to fit in with the Linux community.  On the
other hand, I can probably think of at least 5 women I know who have
given Linux a shot, but been frustrated enough by their experiences to
put it off, even with my help and plenty of links and resources.  I've
seen more support for this HOWTO than opposition, so I think it should
stay.

> There is actually a glaring factual error near the beginning of this 
> document. The
> assumption is taken that the way people behave is primarily due to their 
> environment
> (nurture) and that anything intrinsic(nature) is insignificant. This is 
> definitely not
> backed up by scientific research.

Did we read the same HOWTO?  :D  

At the beginning of Chapter 2, Val quotes some books and papers
providing detailed research information about this subject.  Perhaps if
you're referring to a specific passage you could quote it for
clarification.

Val, I'm a firm believer in examples, and if you could locate any other
documents or articles to add there, I think it could only help matters! 
:D

> Research on twins separated at birth(both male and female) once brought 
> together
> years later shows that they have uncanny similarities in some parts of 
> their personalities,
> as well as their own particular attitudes and habits. The use of twins 
> in psychological
> and medical research is an acid test for the existence of genetically 
> based behavior.
> Check for yourself.

I respect your reference, and I've heard the same thing.  It's
absolutely valid research, but it in no way discredits the research
that's been done on the environmental/cultural/societal (name your tune)
differences between men or women to which Val is referring.  Let's face
it, if you live in the United States, how many times have you heard on
TV or radio or read in the paper that men are from Mars, and women are
from Venus?  I say the US because we're always over-inundated with
messages like this and I can't speak for any other country except
Canada, which is pretty much as bad for reminding men and women why
we're so different.

> This factual error, with respect to current science, along with other 
> opinions expressed
> near the beginning brings the whole document into question. Why? It is 
> not reasonable
> to use this premise and shows faulty research.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  I can't come to the same
conclusions as you, perhaps because I've felt gender-bias outside of the
Linux community, and still do quite often.  

> >Val, let me know what you think of these ideas.  I'd appreciate your
> >thoughts, since it IS your work, and I want to make sure I'm not way off
> >base with my suggestions.
> >
> So it IS her work. And?

My message there was to Val.  I didn't want her to think I'd arbitrarily
found things to pick on, and that I tried to give feedback I believe
will improve her work, which she worked very hard on.  Since she was the
one who wrote it, I meant that she was the best person to determine if
my suggestions merited updating her work - and nothing more.

> I get the gist that this is supposed give it some higher value. Correct 
> me if I am wrong.
> You know there are many books in any library. Does that automatically 
> mean they have
> earned some kind of stature? Some of those books are crap and some are 
> works of art.

I'm not much worried about the books that are out there other than
hoping my fiction makes it!  In the meantime, Val's HOWTO met the LDP
guidelines for a HOWTO, in that it addresses a specific subject and
provides a solution, running about the right length (as opposed to
guides which are much longer, or FAQs, which are too short).  

> I recently did a book review for the Canadian Association of Physicists 
> on a book
> written by one of my university professors. Guess what. It was poorly 
> written. And
> I said so. The work was less than acceptable for a person with his 
> experience and
> education. I call them like I see them. As well as doing book reviews 
> for my
> professional organization, I have also been working with a professional 
> translator
> for over five years assisting, off and on, with language revisions and 
> terminology.
> Just a bit of the credentials I have that enable me to do one little 
> document review.

Those are wonderful credentials!

My job (as I understand it) as Review Coordinator, is to ensure that new
documents and existing documents (when possible) go through three stages
of review:  

The peer review will tell us if people like the idea, whether something
already exists, what it may be lacking, and whether it meets the basic
criteria. 

Once a document is "accepted," a technical review (or conceptual review,
if you will, for a non-technical doc) is helpful, to double check facts
and accuracy.  

If Val has verified her facts (and providing links and specific
references certainly lends to believing she has done a good deal of
research), then she has passed through that stage.  

The "pre-publish" review is less of an issue in this case, as it is
meant for spelling, grammar, markup and overall final polishing and
readiness.

I realize you know all of this, but the reason I reiterate it is because
these are the guidelines I follow in performing my job as coordinator. 
In addition to that, I evaluate the feedback provided and determine the
best course of action related to my duties, which means helping decide
whether a document should stay or, in some cases, go.  

I stand by my previous recommendations to bring the document up to date
and keep it published.  And if examples can be included, showing recent
incidents, this would only further substantiate that there is a need for
such a HOWTO.  Always remember the audience.  :D

> Tabatha, if you manage to find others to do the review I am fine with 
> that. Else
> I'll have to go it alone--no other volunteers as of yet from the list. 
> I'll postpone
> starting on that for a while.

At Val's request, I will conduct the review.  I am going to bring in two
other LDP reviewers (of both genders, incidentally), to make sure it's
conducted objectively.

Thanks,
Tab

-- 
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:32:39AM -0800, Tabatha Marshall wrote:

> [...] [I] will also be requesting feedback from a male reviewer, for
> objectivity.
[snip]
> At Val's request, I will conduct the review.  I am going to bring in two
> other LDP reviewers (of both genders, incidentally), to make sure it's
> conducted objectively.

Hi Tabatha,

Thank you for rounding up reviewers.  I appreciate that a lot!

I just want to point out one more time that mere numerical balance in
the genders of reviewers will not produce "objectivity."  It makes
sense to seek out reviewers because of their expertise in the subject
matter, or because they are a member of the target audience, or
because you want more diversity in the reviewers.  Please seek out
reviewers based on these reasons, rather than on their gender.  I
agree with you that having a male reviewer would be good, but only
because of the diversity argument or the target audience argument, not
the gender-balance argument.

To clarify my point: I would prefer a review committee consisting
entirely of men who are experts in the area of encouraging women in
Linux (or related topics) rather than a review committee consisting
entirely of women randomly selected from the population at large.
Merely seeking out "a man" and "a woman" as reviewers is tokenism at
best.

No, I am not objecting to having male reviewers - the HOWTO already
has been reviewed by many men and I am in the process of integrating
comments from male reviewers as we speak.  I am just objecting to a
tokenist approach to objectivity. :)

-VAL

Val Henson wrote:

> because of the diversity argument or the target audience argument, not
> the gender-balance argument.

it's not comletely right. most of your (very good in my point of view) 
HOWTO is a matter of feeling. "women feels...".

men can feel diversly. For example you say men are more confident than 
women. I think you are wrong. Men _show_ more confidence, they are 
educated to do so, but beleive me, they are not really :-(.

> To clarify my point: I would prefer a review committee consisting
> entirely of men who are experts in the area of encouraging women in
> Linux

whow... I would love to be... STOP this is a sexual joke. who is joking, 
you or me?

anyway we are not numerous enough to can do any statistics :-)

jdd


-- 
http://www.dodin.net

A suggestion that I believe might quell future objection to this
document, in whole or part, would simply be to change its title.

As it stands, the title does not accurately reflect the target audience it
is intended for. The document is aimed at those men in Linux whose
IQs and EQs are too low to know how to act appropriately.

If the title were, as a possibility, along the lines of "Group behavior
for Men in Linux(for Dummies)" or "How men should act towards
women just trying to get on with the job of learning and using Linux",
as tongue-in-cheek suggestions, then I don't think I would have even 
bothered to suggest a review.

For me, the current title suggests that it is equally targeted towards
men and women. Women who are interested in encouraging other
women might be let down up initial reading to find that it is directed
at men. The title is just too general. The audience for this document
is a sub-group of men(those that are probably on the sub-human
side).

Changing the title could be the quickess and most effective fix
in this case. I'm sure most of you have heard of Occam's Razor.

Raymond: Martin

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:32:08PM -0500, Raymond wrote:
> 
> As it stands, the title does not accurately reflect the target audience it
> is intended for. The document is aimed at those men in Linux whose
> IQs and EQs are too low to know how to act appropriately.

The men who asked me these questions at Ottawa Linux Symposium struck
me as intelligent and well-meaning, just lacking a little experience
in interacting with women as peers.  I counted, and since the HOWTO's
original publication, 33 men sent me personal email expressing
gratitude for the HOWTO, and often thanking me for helping them
understand what they were doing wrong.  They also seemed intelligent
and well-meaning.  The men who showed up to the second Women in Linux
BoF at OLS also seemed intelligent and well-meaning.

In addition, the audience does explicitly include women.  Like any
other human beings, women can be sexist, intentionally or
unintentionally.  I actually need to add a section along the lines of
"Women are sexist, too."

> For me, the current title suggests that it is equally targeted towards
> men and women.

It's equally targeted at people who want to encourage women in Linux
but aren't sure how.  More men than women fall into this category
simply because most women have a reasonably good idea of how they
would like to be treated, and can extend those ideas to other women
without much effort.

> Women who are interested in encouraging other women might be let
> down up initial reading to find that it is directed at men.

But it isn't directed at men alone.  Read the "Audience" section.

> The title is just too general. The audience for this document
> is a sub-group of men(those that are probably on the sub-human
> side).

All the men who found the HOWTO useful would be offended to hear you
say that.  In fact, it's possible you have done more male-bashing in
this review than I have in my entire life.

> Changing the title could be the quickess and most effective fix
> in this case. I'm sure most of you have heard of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor in its usually accepted sense, "The simplest explanation
is likely to be the correct one,"[1] does not have anything to say
about the best fix is for a problem.  I object to your attempt to use
fallacious reasoning to shut down debate.

-VAL

[1] Occam's Razor literally is "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
neccesitate," or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."