<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Discussion on con panel gender parity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://champagneandsocks.com/2012/07/22/discussion-on-con-panel-gender-parity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://champagneandsocks.com/2012/07/22/discussion-on-con-panel-gender-parity/</link>
	<description>A Girlie Jones Adventure</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 03:51:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlisaK</title>
		<link>http://champagneandsocks.com/2012/07/22/discussion-on-con-panel-gender-parity/#comment-9013</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[AlisaK]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://champagneandsocks.com/?p=1384#comment-9013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I guess at some point I should check how my con actually did as well. We didn&#039;t set a quota either but just generally tried, as you say, to be inclusive and reach beyond the reasonably suspects. If anything, we tried to limit people to a maximum number of panels, which forced us to look for more people. I think the quota is best used for those who otherwise wouldn&#039;t be able or interested in reaching beyond the usual - which does take longer and is more work.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess at some point I should check how my con actually did as well. We didn&#8217;t set a quota either but just generally tried, as you say, to be inclusive and reach beyond the reasonably suspects. If anything, we tried to limit people to a maximum number of panels, which forced us to look for more people. I think the quota is best used for those who otherwise wouldn&#8217;t be able or interested in reaching beyond the usual &#8211; which does take longer and is more work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross</title>
		<link>http://champagneandsocks.com/2012/07/22/discussion-on-con-panel-gender-parity/#comment-9006</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://champagneandsocks.com/?p=1384#comment-9006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hmmm, a lot of naysayers there when it comes to whether gender parity is even possible on con panels.  As programmer for the recent NZ Natcon, I thought I should check my own back yard first.  I&#039;ve just did the calculation and it turns out that 54% of panel places at the con were filled by women.

Apart from one item which had a very specific sex oriented topic, I didn&#039;t consider gender parity at all when putting people on panels con.  But I did put a big emphasis on inclusiveness.  Both in terms of spreading the net of topics as widely as possible but also in terms of gathering from the broad range of attendees rather than relying on the same old faces to fill the panels.  The rest of the concom and I made a conscious effort to find out whether people registering for the con had things that they were prepared to share and if so invited them to participate in the programme.

It is only one data point and the circumstances of our rather small con aren&#039;t necessarily going to be duplicated elsewhere.  Nevertheless it is nice to know that some sort of equity can be achieved without enforcement of quotas or something equally heavy handed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm, a lot of naysayers there when it comes to whether gender parity is even possible on con panels.  As programmer for the recent NZ Natcon, I thought I should check my own back yard first.  I&#8217;ve just did the calculation and it turns out that 54% of panel places at the con were filled by women.</p>
<p>Apart from one item which had a very specific sex oriented topic, I didn&#8217;t consider gender parity at all when putting people on panels con.  But I did put a big emphasis on inclusiveness.  Both in terms of spreading the net of topics as widely as possible but also in terms of gathering from the broad range of attendees rather than relying on the same old faces to fill the panels.  The rest of the concom and I made a conscious effort to find out whether people registering for the con had things that they were prepared to share and if so invited them to participate in the programme.</p>
<p>It is only one data point and the circumstances of our rather small con aren&#8217;t necessarily going to be duplicated elsewhere.  Nevertheless it is nice to know that some sort of equity can be achieved without enforcement of quotas or something equally heavy handed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
