[Linux-aus] Grant Application - A grant to Moe Menshed (about to start)

[Russell Coker]

On Saturday, 25 March 2017 7:37:38 PM AEDT James Polley wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Russell Coker <russell at coker.com.au> wrote:
> > Robert, we are having ongoing discussions about your application for a
> > menshed
> > grant.  Robyn says that in Adelaide the mensheds don't exclude women.  To
> > clarify the issue please briefly explain what you are doing to make your
> > menshed welcoming to women and non-binary people.
> 
> I don’t believe this request to Robert is warranted.

Robyn made a claim that determines the suitability of the grant that isn't 
specific to the Moe Menshed.  I think it's reasonable to discover whether the 
Moe Menshed is going to operate like the ones in Adelaide.

> Secondly: assuming that it does apply, the wording still refers to
> “unwarranted exclusion”. Robert has been asked to defend the “exclusion”
> part, but the “unwarranted” part seems to have been ignored. Beyond Blue
> commissioned a detailed study[2] on Mens Sheds in 2013 and found that they
> “are in an important position to be able to impact priority health group”;
> and that “Shed membership positively impacts on the experience of mental
> health and well-being.”

That article raises some good points.  But there's nothing in there that 
indicates a single-gender shed is required and there's no comparison done with 
makerspaces, hackerspaces, or other non-gender specific organisations.

In terms of support for older men, makerspaces and hackerspaces appear to do 
well in that regard.  In all my visits to such places in Australia the only 
time I recall seeing more than 1 woman in a hackerspace at the same time was 
the special visit to the Canberra space after an LCA.  On most of the 
occasions I've visited hackerspaces there have been no women there for the 
entire duration of my visit.

> So: this is not a conference, nor a related event. Rather than exclusion,
> there is a focus particular priority health group, and that focus seems to
> have been shown to be warranted.

Where has it been shown that being gender specific is required?

Have the Adelaide mensheds that allow women to enter been shown to be less 
effective than ones that are strictly men-only?

If "menshed" is just a name as Robyn says then Robert can easily confirm this 
and we can move on.  But we need facts to make a decision.  We can't have a 
reasonable discussion about it when people are operating on significantly 
different interpretations of the meaning of the organisation.

James, we need to know whether your interpretation or Robyn's interpretation 
is correct.  Robert is the only one who can clarify this.

> I think the original grant request here is suboptimal - I would prefer to
> see us working together with ITShare or ComputerBank on a coordinated
> approach, where perhaps we provide funding, they provide hardware, and the
> Mens Shed provides a venue and training. I don’t know precisely what Robyn
> had in mind, but I commend her for stepping up and offering to work on a
> more effective way for the funding to be used.

Of the reasons given for joining mens' sheds in the Beyond Blue article 2 of 
the top 4 are "to give back to the community" and "to share my knowledge and 
expertise".  It seems that paying people to run training isn't going to help 
that and may actually diminish it.  Consider Dunc Tank as a practical 
demonstration of this.

> [0] The CoC quoted here was actually specific to LCA2017 and definitely not
> relevant here; but it’s based on the actual LA code of conduct[1], which
> does contain the same language.
> [1]
> https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/blob/master/code
> _of_conduct.md [2]
> https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/default-source/research-project-files/bw0
> 208.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [3] https://linux.org.au/values

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/