search

rladies / community

This repository hosts proposals and discussions from the community on different aspects and activities of R-Ladies.
4 stars 0 forks source link

Re-branding from R-Ladies to R-Ladies+ #10

Closed yabellini closed 3 months ago

yabellini commented 5 months ago

Proposal

The mission of R-Ladies Global is to promote gender diversity in the R community. The intent is to support all minority genders, including but not limited to cis/trans women, trans men, non-binary, genderqueer, and agender.

The Global Team has received feedback that not all minority genders identify with the name "R-Ladies". In an effort to be inclusive of all minority genders, we propose for discussion re-branding from "R-Ladies" to "R-Ladies+". The plus here is meant to encompass minority genders that do not relate to the term "R-Ladies".

Points of view

Pros

Cons

In some countries being a minority gender is deemed illegal - a global overview of this is available at https://database.ilga.org/en. In those countries, hosting an event branded as R-Ladies+ could pose a risk to the event organizers and attendees for persecution.

R-Ladies as a brand is widely known and recognized; changing the brand could cause confusion or limit searchability. Discrepancies between handles and branding across multiple platforms could cause confusion.

Other Considerations

R-Ladies is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization named "R-Ladies Global." If we rebrand, our non-profit name will remain "R-Ladies Global," but it will be rebranded in all other places.

However, labeling text could be updated to reflect "R-Ladies+ Global". New social media accounts would have to consider whether the handle should include the + or not in the handle, if it is an allowable character.

There could also be a discrepancy between the global labeling and chapter labeling. Would chapter social media accounts be re-labeled to R-Ladies+ CITYNAME? Would this be enforced or optional?

This list of pros, cons, and considerations is not exhaustive. Additional considerations are welcome, encouraged, and valued.

Possible Alternatives

Alternative suggestions for branding are welcome and encouraged.

Contributing to the Discussion

We value the community's feedback on this discussion. Specifically, we would like to know if you are in favor of, against, or not sure about this proposal. We would also like to hear the reasons behind your stance.

To ensure a valuable and participatory discussion, we ask that you read the complete discussion procedure at the Readme on this community repository.

Please do not invite contributors to this discussion on social media. The intent is for this discussion to be open to only current or potential members of the R-Ladies community. You are welcome to invite contributors via direct messages, email, slack, etc.

You may also participate by submitting a comment via the Submit discussion content form, either anonymously or named. This option is available for those who do not have a GitHub account or for those who wish to comment anonymously. More details on the Readme on this community repository.

Timeline

Moderators

The moderators for the discussion are Silvia Canelón (@spcanelon) and Andrea Gomez Vargas (@SoyAndrea).

Allies participation

Allies to R-Ladies are welcome to observe the discussion, but are asked to refrain from participating.

jnolis commented 3 months ago

Hi! I’m a trans woman who has been a member for a while. I think rebranding it to a more gender inclusive name is a great idea, but I think just adding a + to the end comes across as somewhat demeaning. It to me suggests that ladies are the primary people and others can be included but have minority status within the group. I think if a rebrand is desired it should go further. Thanks!

LinaMorenoAzocar commented 3 months ago

I was conflicted before posting here, that is why I decided to stay silent on this, but after reading most comments here, I changed my mind. As a cis woman, I feel that we are at the same point as when Spanish-speaking countries began to discuss that masculine adjectives do not include the feminine, but rather make it invisible. When we say "RLadies" we leave out other minority groups. And it is essential (especially in these times where violence against diversity seems to resurface), that we take a position on the matter. From this feeling, I am in favor of RLadies+. I found the idea of ​​acronyms funny, but it is true that we are biasing towards an English-speaking world, and on the other hand it would expose people from countries where gender diversity is a conflict. I think that making the logo multicolored and including the + would be a clear change towards greater representation (the rainbow flag is a symbol recognized worldwide), without generating conflicts due to a radical change of brands. Beyond this and as mentioned in many comments, it is essential to transform inclusion into concrete actions, and not just into symbols. Thank you very much for bringing this topic to the community.

jade-young commented 3 months ago

Hello all, I am posting on behalf of @rladies-aurora ~ We believe this rebrand and discussion is a step in the right direction toward encouraging gender inclusivity throughout the organization! The popular proposed name "R-Ladies+" does seem to be a good option, however, we agree that this may still be alienating to those who do not identify as "ladies" and are often just lumped into this category, erasing their unique experiences. "weR" seems like a more inclusive option; maybe it can be "weR -- formally R-Ladies" to help maintain the brand identity that has been established and limit confusion. Looking forward to hearing more from the community!

Lextuga007 commented 3 months ago

I've had a comment before from a cis-woman when referring to R-Ladies as she didn't like the term "lady" as she felt it was demeaning. This hadn't been anything I'd thought of until that moment but it's bothered me since and highlighted that it's not a universally acceptable term.

I live in the UK and ladies is closely connected to class and does contradict itself. On the one hand it refers to wealth and aristocracy and to be called that can be demeaning. This Quora thread does a great job showing how this term can be positive and negative in different contexts and is interpreted by people so differently https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-offensive-to-refer-to-a-woman-as-a-lady. To some it's a perfectly fine word, to others it's deeply uncomfortable and perhaps offensive. Then, of course and most importantly, it can also exclude.

It's hard to create a brand and even harder to change it so I'm mindful that this is a difficult decision and I'm grateful for the leadership group opening this to discussion. My preference would be to drop the word Ladies altogether and seek a fully inclusive word that reflects the community but I'd look first to the opinions of those from minority genders as theirs is an opinion that I value above my discomfort that comes from culture (which given time could quite easily change!).

Edit: On the suggested names from the thread (that I missed when first posting) I like weR, as in "we are" and "we R" because it is a play on the R use throughout the wider community, our work and we just R/are.

drmowinckels commented 3 months ago

I am part of R-Ladies leadership, but am writing this comment as a community member to engage in the discussion. This comment is not a reflection of the leadership's position, I have not discussed this topic with them. I am a cis-woman.

I am very happy to see everyone engaging in this important discussion. It's great to see so many support and care for this rebrand.

For my part, I think this is a very important step and it's nice to see so many options and opinions. I am in support of making a larger change than simply adding a +, for the many reasons mentioned earlier. Mostly, to show that other genders are not an afterthought and are equally welcome into our community. I see this in friends and colleagues who have non-conforming gender identities, that they don't feel comfortable (or out of principle will not) join a space with the word 'lady' in it. This is a real shame.

That being said, I am also apprehensive about a large change in name, out of fear for the large and well established community we already have. A lot of community members have a very strong connection to being 'R-Ladies', and we will need to put in a lot of effort to make sure that the new name is embraced and that the community can feel a connection to the new brand.

Lastly, I think it is important to retain a connection to what is R-Ladies' main mission, which is to increase representation of genders in all aspects of R-use (users, developers, advocates etc). I understand from the discussion that we will likely also have to follow this branding discussion up with a mission discussion, but imo, R-Ladies' focus on gender is what makes this community unique in the R-space. We have several other organisations that focus on other aspects, and I think it's important that we each focus on what we are best able to focus on (while also acknowledging that all these issues are equally important, but one org cannot do it all). I think intersectionality with gender is within the current scope of R-Ladies, and we can and should work more with that, but gender as the primary mission. Because of this, and because I don't want to interfere with rainbowR's community (which I am also part of), if we were to incorporate more colours in our logo, I would not opt for rainbow colors, but rather colours for trans and non-binary flags,as these pertain to gender, not to sexuality.

With this very long-winded comment, I'd also like to suggest the name 'gendeRise', both for the Rise of gender, and making more genders present (genderise) in the R-ommunity and exploring how we can tie in non-binary and trans flag colours .

ClaudHGE commented 3 months ago

I like R-Ladies+

have you noticed the "-" and "+" signs? that's kinda cool. :)

cararthompson commented 3 months ago

Thank you for opening the discussion on how to make the space one in which everyone feels welcome. I like the suggestion of weR, as it brings with it a sense of community (we) around a key activity (R), in a way that is both inclusive and allows us to showcase what we do. In the rebranding, we could emphasise the "we", as a way of highlighting the contributions this diverse community brings to R. In my mind it is also suggests a greater sense of unity than adding a + to the existing name.

The original name has sometimes caused confusion to those not in the R community, if it's heard as "our ladies", which brings to mind "our Lady of [place]" in some hearers when I've mentioned the events, and carries with it the complexities mentioned by others above.

There's always a danger of rebranding causing confusion, but if there is wide support within the community for a new name that all the chapters feel they can use, and clear communication about it, I don't think it would necessarily be a problem in the long term. If anything, a more radical rebrand would be seen as a greater commitment to getting this right for everyone.

PythonCoderUnicorn commented 3 months ago

the gendeRise idea is nice, which then kind of becomes a sibling to rainbowR. Changes to the name come with challenges but the greater community will rally together.

i did not expect to see such a lengthy discussion on this topic but am pleased to see.

costavale commented 3 months ago

I like the idea of using R-LADIES+ as acronym and the possibility of including the flag in the logo.

EllaKaye commented 3 months ago

Hello. It's great to see this discussion so far. I commented earlier on behalf of rainbowR. This is from me personally.

I am in favour of a rebrand, both in terms of name and broader inclusivity practices, to make clear that this is a community for all minoritised genders, though I do understand the challenges of a large-scale change. As a cis woman, I don't presume to speak on any matters related to trans and non-binary inclusivity, but even as a cis woman, I don't love the use of the word 'Ladies'. As others in this thread have pointed out, the term has class connotations (in the UK it is an aristocratic title). Of the various suggestions so far, weR is by far my favourite. It feels powerful and collective, and works in conjunction with lots of other words: 'weR supportive', 'weR stronger together' etc. (would need to keep it visually distinct from webR though!)

Following on from @drmowinckels comments above, there is clearly a lot of overlap between R-Ladies and rainbowR, both in terms of membership and a general commitment to supporting under-represented communities within the broader R community. I'm not at all concerned about interfering with each other - quite the opposite, I'd love for there to be stronger links between the communities, and a discussion about areas of similarity and difference (but that's a separate issue and doesn't need to be picked up in this thread). I do think though, like Mo, that it would be best to keep our visual identities distinct.

SoyAndrea commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of Roxana Adam (submitted using our form)

Roxana Adam

From statistical perspective of R-Ladies is a subgroup within the R community (sample form R users population). However, I can see how the name "R-Ladies" might create a subconscious barrier for some, even if the community itself is welcoming to everyone at the events.

For most of the various minorities communities it's about fostering a space that's inclusive of diverse identities and allies, but also for those which by definition doesn’t fit in the community but supports the same community. R-Ladies, in my opinion, has a similar approach - a space that welcomes anyone who identifies as a woman, regardless of their birth sex, or for anyone who supports the goals of the community and wants to contribute to a more diverse and inclusive R environment for everyone.

In fact, I've seen instances where men have actively supported R-Ladies events and initiatives. This demonstrates that the community's values resonate with individuals beyond gender lines.

Just like with the minority groups I support, the real sense of belonging comes from the interactions and support within the community, not just the name on the banner. If updates like a logo change or a broader term in the name would make others feel more welcome, I'd be happy to see that happen - but it doesn't sound as a "must" for me. In the end, it's the core values and the supportive atmosphere that matters most.

SoyAndrea commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form)

I think safety should take priority. In general I think it is important to make as many people as possible feel that they are included. However, if I have to choose between peoples' safety or feelings, I will always choose safety. Therefore, the current name should be kept.

In some countries being a minority gender is deemed illegal - a global overview of this is available at https://database.ilga.org/en. In those countries, hosting an event branded as R-Ladies+ could pose a risk to the event organizers and attendees for persecution.

thisisnic commented 3 months ago

I'd like to add my own (not as part of the RLadies team) response to this comment - I agree safety is extremely important, but I don't think this is necessarily an either/or situation; we can rebrand overall to an alternative name while taking measures to ensure we are considering our chapters in countries where this could be problematic - whether that be careful use of language in the description, having exemptions to the rebrand, etc.

To do this, we'd also need to assess how feasible the different potential approaches are and it'd be great to hear from folks in countries where a full rebrand could be problematic to hear what they'd need to continue to operate safely.

spcanelon commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form)

I was never comfortable with the name R-Ladies & the various interpretations of what R-Ladies was. I was really keen to support it at first. I seen the objective to gain confidence in the world of R & business for me and others. but in reality I often found it and excluding and was used as not a subgroup but rater an exclusive group that was negative to how they assumed the rest of R-commuinity behavied. It seemed to start as female only, it progressed to inclusive of others, but it wasn't clear when and how then should the subgroup be expected to interact with the main community rather than being kept as a subgroup/exlusive.

I like the idea of a progressive group that works towards empowering those who haven't had the change to be comfortable in the main R-Community & of course be able to make the R-comunity a stronger and more inclusive place in general. I like the idealistic idea of it being better for all.

If rebranding goes ahead, I would like to see something more inclusive than R-Ladies+ I don't feel this is recognising the ethos described in the chat. R-progressive group or R-Diverse group. I am sure someone will have a better name, but the idea of something that is inclusive would be good.

PythonCoderUnicorn commented 3 months ago

to the points made above, the proposed name weR is ambiguous and inclusive.

There is no gender or class attachment to attack or sensor unlike Ladies . Same reason why I was hesitant to join or participate in PyLadies. This meets the criteria of removing any social gender roles, expectations, exclusions and government censorship. Safety is baked in the name. This also allows weR (if selected) to point to RainbowR for further support.

yabellini commented 3 months ago

I am part of the leadership team and am posting this comment as part of the community to share my personal view. I identify as a white Latin American cis woman. I use DeepL and Grammarly to write this message.

“The type of language we use is not innocent. If we use a language that takes as the norm and measure of humanity only a part of it (the masculine), we help to persist in the collective imagination the perception that everything that is not masculine is subsidiary, secondary and dispensable. We call this sexist use of language.”⁹

I think the same principles apply here. words are important and powerful. How we name something or not has a great influence on how we see and understand it. So, the name of our community is an important issue: if the way we name ourselves is keeping the people we want to serve from participating, then we need to take steps to correct it

R-Ladies gave me opportunities and growth that no other space gave me. It changed my career, and I would like to make that opportunity available to as many people as possible.

This is why I am in favor of a complete name change for all the reasons stated above.

As a non-native English speaker I can accept English as the lingua franca and accept a name that makes sense in that language, with the caveat of making the corresponding efforts to explain the new name or also consider accepting the different translations of our brand and allow the use in the native language of each country.

I also believe that we need to maintain our focus on gender and the intersectionalities that apply and expand our efforts to work together with other communities that serve other needs in the community.

In that respect, I would like those of us who are white cis women to take on the role of the most privileged members of our group and be the allies that people of other genders in our community need. Let's use the power that comes with our privilege. I completely agree with Jan that our strength comes from working together. The effort must come from us making people feel a belonging, not from dividing the community because we can't compromise. And the one who must concede, if needed, is the one who has more privilege.

Also, we will never ask our members to risk their safety; we are actually working on building a safer and better place for everyone.

Having said all this, I like weR as a proposal even though it loses focus on the genre.

Being from Latin America, where I live, it has been called a “Developing Country,” “Third World Country,” and “Global South.” All these definitions have a lot of problems, and some of them are ways of trying to say “everybody except the Anglophone North America, Europe, and Australia.” A new definition has emerged: “The Global Majority” or "The Majority World". The term highlights the fact that we are indeed the majority of humankind. It also defines the community in terms of what it has, rather than what it lacks.

Following this logic and being that our genres represent the majority (Jan already mentioned it in one of they comments), I propose as a new name:

mainR: as in "The Majority in R" or "The R Majority" and making the pun with the meaning of main: important or principal and the name that usually has a start function in several programming languages (Python, for example).

I am very grateful to all those who have already participated in the discussion and shared their points of view. I truly hope this is a path to strengthen our community.

spcanelon commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of Rox M. (submitted using our form)

I apologize because I don't speak very well in English.

Thank you for having this discussion. I don't identify as a "Lady", but I feel part of the R-Ladies community.

Some of the new names proposed are very difficult to understand to me because of my level of English. Maybe they are good for people that speak English well. That is not all the R community. Where I live not everyone has the opportunity to learn it.

When I learned about R-Ladies some years ago, the name was clear to me. It is easy to understand outside countries that speaks English. It means a space about R and not about men. People like me don't always feel safe in spaces for men. In R-Ladies spaces I feel welcome.

I like the proposal of "R-Ladies+". I prefer to see myself in the "+" than having a name that only works for people that speak English. The "+" can be understood by people even if they don't understand English well. Also, the pride flags are universal. The logo can use them more.

Thank you for reading what I have to say!

P.S. I used Google Translate to review some parts of what I wrote. I hope there are not many mistakes.

hturner commented 3 months ago

I've been continuing to think about potential names during the consultation period. I still like R-Gender= which I suggested in an earlier comment, because I think people both in and outside the community will be able to quickly understand what the community is about and appreciate the need for the community regardless of their concept of gender.

The only other idea I came up with (that I like enough to share!) is Elevate R, since the community aims to elevate women and gender diverse people in the R community.

I think either name has the advantage of being heard correctly, which is important when talking about the community, especially where transcription is being used. I think they could also translate well, but that's hard for me to judge as an English speaker.

shannonpileggi commented 3 months ago

I asked chatgpt for some name suggestions, and similar to ElevateR it came up with EmpoweR. Another one was R Together.

spcanelon commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form)

Before moving to data science I used to work in marketing. I don't have a new proposal about the name. Just my two cents about things to keep in mind.

Please feel totally free to ignore everything I just said. I just want to make sure your good intentions and enthusiasm don’t overshadow considering all the risks and what this whole process entails.

spcanelon commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form)

I think that instead of R ladies changing its name to “R-Ladies+” or something else, we should consider creating a separate space for minority genders. Every minority group faces specific challenges and it is unfair to group it all into one. Although I consider myself a minority for specific reasons, I don't think attending a JSM section for minorities like African Americans would be fair to me or to them.

SoyAndrea commented 3 months ago

📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form - Period closed June 17th)

I am all for the rebranding to be changed to “R-Ladies+”. It sounds a lot more inclusive to all genders. However, I do not agree with changing the name without using the word “Ladies” in it. This organization was created for a space for people who identify as a Women and changing it to something like “weR” ceases the direction of the mission. The complete name change to this will create more confusion to who the organization is targeting and will attract general participation from different demographics.

In addition, as much as the organization welcomes people in the gender spectrum, very few are accepted as belonging to the organization. Exactly how does the R-Ladies organization empower its members? It seems it only provides platforms to assist its chapters for meetups, answers questions and provides assistance to certain members. Does its systematic inclusion want active chapters in order for the organization to receive funding and show how progressive it is? I have not seen any mentorship the organization claims to provide. In other R communities, there is massive support and encouragement to its new members and do not show their biases towards people who they think do not belong in the organization. One of the comments referred to the organization as “our community” which sounds quite exclusive and thoroughly expresses an elitism concerning certain people who are not given as much attention as others are, especially in the organization’s social media. This kind of support benefits a few in the organization. This appears as the organization is not united and needs to find a way to make all members proud to belong to this organization.

It seems the organization wants to promote Women who are doing as well as men are but do not want to network as well as men do. Unfortunately, I do not hear talk of a Sisterhood which should be palpable among its members. Does this not apply because we all come from different backgrounds, what are we protecting ourselves from?

The interaction among members seems to be based on a fear of association or an unwillingness to associate with people who are not like them. There is a serious lack of networking unlike in other communities where I'm a part of where they are more friendly, open to learn about all people and do not dismiss people because they are not like them in any way. [a sentence was removed due to not following our CoC] I feel more safer in other groups where I can grow in my programming abilities than I can in this organization. Why is this organization so afraid of welcoming and embracing all its members?

Not only does the rebranding need to change but our interaction with one another. This comment may highly not be taken into consideration because it does not come from a collective but I feel this is the only time to express some of the concerns I see happening. I only hope the organization can open up to all its members and not only those who they can benefit from.

to the points made above, the proposed name weR is ambiguous and inclusive.

There is no gender or class attachment to attack or sensor unlike Ladies . Same reason why I was hesitant to join or participate in PyLadies. This meets the criteria of removing any social gender roles, expectations, exclusions and government censorship. Safety is baked in the name. This also allows weR (if selected) to point to RainbowR for further support.

jstrappa commented 3 months ago

To the anonymous comment above: R-Ladies was never a space for women only. The reason for changing the name is to attract people from other genders to join, which seems like a problem to you. Your views are borderline transphobic (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). Sorry for commenting after the deadline but some of the above statements are misinformation.

jnolis commented 3 months ago

As a trans person I think this conversation is going to start devolving very quickly if we post to criticize other posts and call them transphobic.

spcanelon commented 3 months ago

📣 Hi everyone! This is a message from moderators Andrea (@SoyAndrea) and Silvia. Thank you all for your participation in this discussion! We want to bring your attention to a couple of things:

Timeline update:

jstrappa commented 3 months ago

Amazing, invalidating and censoring a trans person. I am going to insist that the previous comment was borderline transphobic, and I'm going to call out your internalized transphobia. You are not allowed to invalidate other trans folks just because you're trans. I'm sorry you feel the need to do that. You can keep saying that I'm not allowed to say whatever you think is inappropriate, I'm going to reinforce my claims. I believe this goes against the CoC. You are disrupting the discussion and favoring oppressive views. My comment was adding to the discussion.

SoyAndrea commented 3 months ago

Hi everyone, as a moderator of this discussion. We are closing this issue now because the discussion is over. If someone has to report an issue to the CoC, you can do it by sending an email to: reporting@rladies.org

yabellini commented 2 months ago

This is an update on the action the Leadership Team is taking after discussing the R-Ladies name change:

We held a meeting with the moderators and the Code of Conduct Committee to debrief the discussion process. Overall, the process was adequate, and we plan to use it in the future. During the meeting, we established a list of tasks to document the process and make necessary improvements. This includes creating guides for participants, moderators, and outlining the role of the Code of Conduct Committee in community discussions. Additionally, we plan to develop a process for the community to suggest discussion topics to the leadership team.

The Leadership Team has outlined a list of tasks to move forward with the analysis of the discussion. These tasks include:

Note: The Leadership Team meets weekly to discuss and work on community issues. Meetings last one hour and have a pre-arranged agenda.