Re: Grant Application - A grant to Moe Menshed (about to start)

I'm more than happy for Linux Australia to find a grant for equipment if
it's related to educating people in the use of FOSS and what FOSS is about.

The discussion about whether a "men's shed" is a valid recipient?
Absolutely. While their focus may be for men, they provide a vital
connection for men over a certain age, who are statistically much more at
risk of suicide and social isolation.

This is a good thing.

As to paying for training? Eh not so much but I'm sure something can be
arranged in terms of volunteers.

Yet another James

On Sat., 25 Mar. 2017, 8:41 pm Russell Coker, <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Saturday, 25 March 2017 7:37:38 PM AEDT James Polley wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Russell Coker <[email protected]>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus
>

_______________________________________________
linux-aus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus