On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
> It is actually my hope that a separate list will not be necessary as I tend > to like a more integrated approach. (I did not much care, for example, > explaining to my middle school son why a free technology camp this summer > was being offered only to girls) > Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's only) tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst this weekend's "Women's British Open" was left to its own devices, albeit rather carefully done imho [2] The equivalent explanation wanting here, therefore, is why IBM would sponsor the Masters whilst missing the "gender balancing" [3] opportunity to sponsor both for possibly marginal marginal cost afaik given the relevant technologies would already have been tried and tested by then? More generally, what does "sponsorship" mean for a corporate like IBM in this case - and what could it mean a next time around? Specifically, a next time around with regards open community development? For example, could HP be our Ricoh? By way of comparison, this October's Ryder Cup is a more traditionally entertainment oriented "Turner Sports Interactive" production [4] subject to the usual viewer ratings models only, for the time being at least. Best, A [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/040610-ibm--the-masters-technology.html [2] http://www.ricohwomensbritishopen.com/Ricoh.aspx [3] http://www.openworldforum.org/attend/agenda/diversity-summit-why-women-matter [4] http://www.rydercup.com/2010/
