LinuxChix coordinator resigns amidst controversy (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

LinuxChix coordinator resigns amidst controversy (Linux.com)

Posted Jun 13, 2007 18:53 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]

Yes, honestly, it's like a press release from a company that's in the crapper and trying to sugar coat axing their management team. They don't want to admit that they're in bad shape but it's hard not to, so the real story is buried in subtexts that are incomprehensible to people who aren't in the know.

So what's going on at linuxchix, exactly?

LinuxChix coordinator resigns amidst controversy (Linux.com)

Posted Jun 13, 2007 18:53 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

"""
Sounds like a tempest in a teapot.
"""

Sounds like a story about Debian development. :-)

Behavior

Posted Jun 13, 2007 22:16 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

It does say, though not very specifically:

".... We have been disturbed and dismayed by a series of events that took place around the issue of the Linuxchix IRC server." The volunteers asserted that Gardiner removed from control others in leadership who disagreed with her decisions....

I recognize a simple power struggle when I see one.

Behavior

Posted Jun 14, 2007 7:19 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

You're right, that certainly isn't very specific

It could be anything from /kicking other channel operators (which among experienced IRCers would be recognised as harmless tomfoolery but might be seen as threatening by the inexperienced) up to having their per-channel authorisation removed from the network's Chanserv (which is definitely serious but needn't have any consequences outside IRC).

Without a clearer explanation I tend to assume that this was an over-reaction

Behavior

Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:08 UTC (Thu) by koide (guest, #22687) [Link]

Did anyone even read the, linked from the article, LinuxChix Collaborative Statement?

There's a pretty clear depiction of one side of the story, which, if true, takes a lot of value out from the "it's just an overreaction" view.

An excerpt:

"Mary chose to ban Carla from irc-admin, volunteers, and removed her IRC ops, with no discussion and no due process. More than 10 volunteers wrote emails in protest."

(I could go on to rant about sexism, assuming overreaction without even reading the facts available on it, but WON'T do it 8-> )

Behavior

Posted Jun 14, 2007 13:34 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

While you're at it, be careful of sexism-hypersensitivity.

Exageration is the bread and butter of news outlets.

Behavior

Posted Jun 15, 2007 7:13 UTC (Fri) by koide (guest, #22687) [Link]

I'd say you are the hypersensitive to sexism here.

My reply had some real value in it and the final phrase was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (as shown by the final smiley, which you might have missed and I wouldn't blame you).

Yours, on the other hand, doesn't have much value, if any.

I agree though, exaggeration is the bread and butter of news outlets and of flamefests too.

This is far from simple.

Posted Jun 14, 2007 17:27 UTC (Thu) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link]

We have two people named - Mary and Val - and both are supposedly associated with behavioral issues. Most of the focus has been on Mary, which seems appropriate as she is the person with greatest authority and responsibility, if I'm understanding this correctly.

Now, from what I understand, certain permissions were withdrawn from some people with operator rights on an IRC server. This could be for many non-disciplinary reasons, ranging from a trimming of excess of beaurocracy through to setting up a mad dictatorship with plans to take over the world. (Lab mice included.) There's also the possibility that there was a disciplinary reason, but the very little information released does not suggest that at all.

There's the appropriateness of it, of course. Now, I don't directly know either of these women*, but I do know that geeks do not readily operate in "social norms", and the incidence of social-impacting "disorders" are hundreds of times more common amongst people in the more cutting-edge IT fields. Am I saying that either of these are Asperger? No, though it wouldn't shock me - the incidence rate is astronomically high in Silicon Valley. All I'm saying is that we really don't know and shouldn't assume something was well thought-out with malicious intent, when it could just as easily be one of any number of weird (and wonderful) "abnormalities" that are the norm in this field.

*Personally, I regard this as a pity. Val has posted on LWN, has a reasonable homepage, and - most important - maintains the TCP/IP drinking game.

Val's "behavior" is undocumented, at least as far as public knowledge seems to go, and is the least referred-to in the letter, so I'm guessing that that was a side-issue. Why it was brought in, if it's relationship to the main issue was not to be explained, I don't know. We don't know enough to be fair to either party. My guess is that if it was a key element in all of this, it would have been a lot more prominent and emphasized.

Mary's "behavior" is talked about in a bit more detail and is certainly not within "traditional norms". It's not clear it's outside of geeks norms, however, and it seems fair to expect geeks to behave by geek standards and not "traditional" standards. On the other hand, geek standards can produce really bad decisions, really poor communication and totally dreadful attitudes. These should not be accepted by a person in a position of responsibility, no matter how geeky they are.

This is far from simple.

Posted Jun 15, 2007 1:59 UTC (Fri) by ofeeley (subscriber, #36105) [Link]

What's high is the _diagnosis_ rate. The denizens of Silicon Valley tend to be rich enough that their problems are taken seriously and root causes and treatments sought.