What's the point anyway?

Posted Dec 2, 2010 2:28 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: What's the point anyway? by bojan
Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences

In my experience, drinking games at conferences are rare. I've had a great time at conferences with people who don't drink at all. There is certainly drinking going on after hours - and not always moderately - but they'll let you in the door even if you don't drink.

That said, alcohol is clearly part of the problem sometimes.

What's the point of conference? I make my living through electronic communications. But, having been to more conferences than I could possibly count, I've come to the conclusion that in-person gatherings are a vital part of making a community work. You react to somebody's email very differently if you hear their voice in your head while you read it. Humans simply have to get together in person every now and then to function well together.

So, if you want to function well in a community like ours, you really need to attend our gatherings every now and then. It's not "awful," it's how we work; it can even be energizing, stimulating, and fun.

OTOH, behavior which makes conferences awful for some people is not acceptable; thus this article.

What's the point anyway?

Posted Dec 2, 2010 5:05 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] (2 responses)

"but they'll let you in the door even if you don't drink."

Well, there was the 2008 OLS whisky bof that came with instructions that you weren't allowed in without a bottle of whisky. Which, sure, you could do without drinking a bunch, but, eh.

And I think a whisky bof is a fun idea, hooray to people who take the trouble to organize one, I totally understand that you wouldn't want freeloaders, but suddenly that year it seemed to be a big semi-official event with some special location the conference organizers had rented, etc., and at that point it'd seem better to explicitly extend the welcome to non-drinkers too.

Whatever. I think that's the exception.

What's the point anyway?

Posted Dec 3, 2010 4:06 UTC (Fri) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, there was the 2008 OLS whisky bof that came with instructions that you weren't allowed in without a bottle of whisky.

I think you very much misinterpreted whatever phrasing was there.

A BOF isn't an official event, and some leniency should be allowed for how people freely associate after the conference has concluded for the day. I, and several other people, went to said BOF; none of us brought a bottle of whiskey, and all were allowed in. That said, a whiskey BOF isn't really a whiskey BOF if nobody brings whiskey, so being encouraged to bring your favorite bottle is hardly a crime.

As to the event itself - yes, there was an organized event; by whom I do not know. Bus rental was arranged and you had to pay your own share to ride there. The whiskey BOF was held at the same place, but there aren't too many places where you can just carry in 50 (or whatever) bottles of whiskey so no matter where it happens it's going to seem like some semi-official event in a special location.

Right?

What's the point anyway?

Posted Dec 3, 2010 17:27 UTC (Fri) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

"I think you very much misinterpreted whatever phrasing was there."

The email Andrew Hutton sent to people who followed up to the original announcement to attendees said "admission is one (sealed) bottle of single malt whisky", followed by a paragraph of detail about exactly what that meant. Maybe he just got lost in the details and didn't mean in to come out that way, but as written it was fairly clear.

"none of us brought a bottle of whiskey, and all were allowed in."

Yeah, in fairness I knew if I asked I might get a different answer, and if it had a been a big deal I would have; as it was I think I was a little on the fence anyway and found something else to do.

"A BOF isn't an official event, and some leniency should be allowed for how people freely associate after the conference has concluded for the day."

Sure. Looks like Andrew Hutton organized it and sent email to all the attendees. Maybe the only difference that year was that he invited everyone on the attendee list.

"none of us brought a bottle of whiskey, and all were allowed in."

I'm not crusading for prohibition here--as organizer of our own little local weekly kernel hacker's pub night, that'd make me a hypocrite--I'd just suggest that if you're a conference organizer wondering how to make your conference welcoming to a variety of people, then you may want to keep the non-drinkers in mind when you announce events that you're organizing.

What's the point anyway?

Posted Dec 2, 2010 11:06 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (5 responses)

they'll let you in the door even if you don't drink.

It's not a question of letting someone in or not. Being sober around people who are not that sober is definitely not fun. Maybe the word "awful" is not too strong to describe this situation. In my experience nearly any kind of social activity involves drinking, so I tend to avoid them. I think (hope?) that during the actual conference it is not a problem, but I guess that the real binding happens after the last presentations, so...

I've read the blog about the assault - it's absolutely appealing and in my opinion the guy deserved a knee to his groin and some time behind bars. I've also noted that the blog writer wore skirts too short (she had to wore bicycle shorts under that) and sit in a couple of laps. Please do not wear such short skirts and do not sit in laps. It is uncomfortable for guys. Probably not as uncomfortable as the lewd remarks, but still uncomfortable. I'm not advocating a chador, just skirts below knee and no cleavage. I mean professional environments do have dress codes, so it's shouldn't be different for conferences.

clothing & victim blaming

Posted Dec 2, 2010 12:32 UTC (Thu) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link] (4 responses)

The knee? Er... Let me tell you, unless you're only looking at ankle-length skirts, it's darned *hard* to find skirts that reach all the way to the knee. Which means I mostly only wear ankle-length skirts, but I digress. Mid-thigh is considered appropriate in school dress codes, and it's very likely the most common length manufactured. Even when I look at dresses labeled "longer lengths," their measurements tell me they'd end at least 6 inches above my knee, and I'm not a basketball player. So, unless you're saying we should all be wearing either ankle-length or sewing our own clothes...

Regarding cleavage, please take a look in the women's department at any store. Find a button-up shirt that actually buttons all the way up. 90% will button only to mid-bosom, perhaps with another button 8 inches up at the collar for the "one button undone" rule. Buttoning this button while not having any buttons in the interim would result in a big old keyhole on the chest, if the button will even reach the hole. These shirts are usually cut so that there isn't enough fabric there for the two sides to reach. They are angled out into a V shape. I looked in Target a few months ago. I found *one* style of shirt made to button all the way. It only came in colors like bright blue plaid and hot pink plaid.

The modes of dressing you are saying are required for men to control themselves are ones that involve having to make ones own clothing or only wearing vintage clothing from the 1950s. They simply are not widely available anymore.

Additionally, she pointed out what she was wearing and how she was behaving to emphasize that a hundred men managed to understand that wearing a short skirt and sitting on someone's lap is NOT consent to being kissed or fondled! Only the word "yes" is consent.

Oh, and by the way, I *do* wear long skirts. I *do* frequently wear high necklines (especially if I'm going to be somewhere as gender-imbalanced as a tech con). Generally, I'm about as covered as an Orthodox Jewish woman, even up to including frequently covering my hair . And you know what? I've still been assaulted and followed at technical conferences.

STOP blaming the victim! Changing how you dress DOES NOT change your likelihood of being assaulted.

clothing & victim blaming

Posted Dec 2, 2010 12:57 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (3 responses)

Please read again what I wrote. I didn't write to dress up properly to avoid getting assaulted. I wrote to dress up in respect to fellow male open source enthusiasts who find it uncomfortable to be around females in short skirts and deep cleavages. It is not about not being able to control ourselves. It's about being uncomfortable. I don't know which part of the world you live, but at least in my part the stores have other kind of clothes too. I have four female colleagues and haven't seen neither their knees or breasts even though sometimes they come to my desk and bend towards my monitor.

clothing & victim blaming

Posted Dec 2, 2010 14:32 UTC (Thu) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link] (1 responses)

I (a male) often wear shorts to conferences, especially ones like LCA and GUADEC held in the summer of hot countries. Is this OK, or does that make you uncomfortable too?

clothing & victim blaming

Posted Dec 2, 2010 20:33 UTC (Thu) by airlied (subscriber, #9104) [Link]

There was a certain shorts wearer that did make a lot of people uncomfortable at a lot of conferences.

clothing & victim blaming

Posted Dec 3, 2010 3:52 UTC (Fri) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

Perhaps another way to say this is that people should avoid dressing & behaving in ways, that if pictured during conference presentations as clip-art, someone would be made uncomfortable by it.