[clug] An alternate place for longer, meandering threads?

[Alex Satrapa]

On 15/09/2009, at 11:22 , Daniel Pittman wrote:

> This is the most likely place to run into trouble, because there  
> isn't a hard
> line that can be drawn between "social" and "not-social" issues.
>
> Not to mention that my eyebrow goes up at the idea that FOSS  
> participation is
> a social, rather than, say, political, or sociological, issue.

[social] being shorter to type than [sociological], and having  
shortened it, it then becomes applicable to political issues since I'm  
inventing a dichotomy of technical vs "social" issues.

aka [social] being a big grab-back of all other issues that are not  
technical.

The tag [wet] would shorter still, but it has problems. If we adopted  
it, [wet] === "issues relating to the wetware involving this  
technology". PySIG, CLUG meetings, technical support requests,  
discussion of new technology Y - these are CLUG/technical related.  
Gender balance of projects, sexism inherent in the system, age balance  
of certain projects - these all seem to me to be candidates for [wet].

It only takes one person replying to the thread to tag it, everyone  
else after will inherit the tag by default :)

The only thing that raises a question in my mind is whether the Geek  
Girl Dinners are the same "thing" as CLUG meetings, or whether they're  
specifically sociological issues since it's a meeting just like the  
CLUG meetings, but they're specifically gender-selective in order to  
allow women a forum to discuss technical issues without men drooling  
on/fawning over/interrupting the participants. To me the GGD are a  
sociological item since they exist to address an issue in meatspace.  
But then the tag "[wet]" might be taken as offensive:

  From: Lana
  Re:   [wet] Geek Girl Dinner

Doesn't quite work, does it?

So [social] is where I got stuck. Hope that thinking out loud has  
helped someone understand where I'm coming from.

Alex