« Bloghercon pre-meeting thoughts   |   Main   |   BMA Product Mktng/Mgmt Roundtable - Chuck Henderson on Launch »

Bloghercon ho!

So we had a good meeting yesterday, where I got to meet Lisa and we hashed out a bunch of things. We spent quite a bit of time talking about whether to “allow” boys, with Lisa and Elisa strongly in favor of being as inclusive as possible. As we talked, I shared my concerns which could be allayed by having strong moderators, rules for exchanges, and creating a shared space for discourse (where anyone can be shut down for ranting or being off topic).

Lisa’s proposing a vote-in, and I’m fine with the outcome, as long as its recognized by all that the issue isn’t so much of male participation, but of preserving a cheerful chick culture and collegial environment — ie, that they keep the focus on chick issues. If we do allow guys (how lofty that sounds, what fun), the discussion will be very structured and our moderators will pay special attention to balancing the voices. We’re already planning on using chess timers to limit question and comment length. I believe my worries can be quelled by those steps.

If you’re a guy and want to come, think carefully about what you want, what your goals and purposes are. This is not going to be one person’s conference as was once famously declared at YANBC. If we allow men, it must be recognized by everyone that they are guests; they come as interested parties to discuss a well-specified topic. For this one conference it will be about women and this will be positive. No whining, non-confrontational/adversarial - we work together to think through these issues surrounded by pink hearts and flowers. Everyone should expect to see a nice kind of regimented equality, where one’s question just might get voted down as “off topic” by attendees.

Insofar as I can speak out among the group, there’s another point to consider. This conference will not be on the “conference circuit” per se. Those who are often brought in to speak (so often male, but that’s not the point here) will not likely be speakers here - given our limited time and unique take. If I had to pick a tag line for the conference today, it would be “Other Voices” - and that’s just the forum I hope to help foster. Personally I hope to use what money we have that might otherwise subsidize speakers to help form scholarships for our grrl attendees.

So yeah, it’s an experiment. A conference run by women for women. Guys might be able to come, but the point of this is that chicks will be setting the agenda and groundrules.

This morning, I see a comment from Nancy White of Seattle (who’s been blogging XX/XY ratios at SXSWinteractive) asking more about how we could connect guys in if we don’t invite them, and where this will be held. The second is easy, though we’re so insular here we hardly thought to say: somewhere in the Bay Area. Top candidates now are Berkeley or Palo Alto (maybe Stanford).

The first touches points that I forgot to mention in my original post, which might not be relevant now (since we might let the buggers in). I was thinking of using technology to bridge the gap - to allow the guys a window on what’s going on in the sessions before we could convene together. Let them peer in through a window, get a sampling of what’s taken place, and then join us - or they could just come.

Those ideas are still valid for a co-ed world. I’m hoping that we can get Doug Kaye of ITConversations to cover the event for posterity, but we should also webcast live to the wild, to allow participants (both boys and girls) to tune in. Then we’d have an IRC channel for backchannel conversations and to link the virtual participants in directly.

I still think we need to do this to effectively serve the community — documenting what we have learned, and allowing the virtual participation of those who (even if child care is offered, which I really hope is a joke - my liability sense is twitching) can’t make it because of schedule, cost, work or family reasons.

I see Elisa’s buzzing about the negativity out in the world, but that doesn’t bother me. We’ll do this thing, and do it positively. I tend to give critics slack as we have so little information out yet; I know I tend to react negatively to pure buzz. We have to acknowledge the (overly, in my view) proprietary view of some folks out there, who do like to maintain their de facto status as gatekeepers. Progress along a straight line is good; change off into a new vector is always scary. So from that view, I could see including guys to help them bridge into this new world. But I will not be happy with tail-chasing sessions to argue about how these issues aren’t relevant or important with some of the people who are best in the world at self-promotion (ie, one certainly doesn’t join the upper blogosphere by charm alone, as we have ample proof). I’m holding out on caring about this until we see boycotts (yes, a pun :-).

bloghercon