On 1 Dec 2014 19:15, "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I love the idea of asking people to
identify with a gender
or sexuality when they haven't done so already. If they
have already done
so, then the question is superfluous. Better to ask them their position on
the actual issue, and if they think there is anything arbcom or the project
as a whole can do better.
I understand that POV, however with only one woman candidate my question
was deliberate. The de facto 'don't ask don't tell' policy is a poor
excuse
for failing properly to address the hostility that some of our contributors
who are open about their gender or orientation have experienced.
We should not have to be forced into the closet to edit Wikipedia, and if
Arbcom members fear to be open, what hope is there for everyone else?
Fae
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Fæ
<faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have
> raised the following question for candidates in the current election:
> "I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the
> diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a
> woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would
> bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of
> dispute?"
>
> I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some
> relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against
> everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority