I agree with Kate here. This seems too much like those cases where one
patron leaves an empty bag of chips on a table, so the whole library
plasters obnoxious "NO FOOD ON THE TABLES" signs all over and creates a
12-person ad hoc committee to discuss food policies. I don't think we need
to create a formal policy based on what happened here except maybe a
statement that we will not passive-aggressively shut down conversations
about sensitive issues due to being deemed off-topic.
Joshua Welker
Library Systems and Discovery Coordinator
James C. Kirkpatrick Library
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
JCKL 2260
660.543.8022
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:19 AM S B <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In at least one initial post early on, I did identify myself. I think
> this is a considerate group of professionals and I would like for you to
> consider some things:
>
> -The survey was anonymous. Anyone could have emailed me at any time with
> questions on more specifics about the survey and some did and I answered
> those questions. I understand that some disagree with the oath I took on
> that. I have heard from some of you and in the future, I will make some if
> the suggested modifications.
>
> -Throughout the time of collecting information and writing part one of the
> series on sexual harassment in libraries, I received some very critical and
> negative messages. In part one of the series, I revealed my own experience
> with sexual harassment, outside the library profession, in the author’s
> note. I decided to do this at the last moment. When you get your in box
> filled with with some mean messages, it is not fun and when you get called
> out, it is also not fun. When I revealed my own experience with sexual
> harassment, it was certainly my own choice but also putting yourself out
> there. Even though I am the writer, I still have a right to privacy and
> right to protect myself from in some cases cruel messages.
>
> -I am human and nothing I ever do will be perfect including parts of the
> investigative process. Some things could have done differently and I have
> already taken owner that.
>
> I appreciate you reading this and I hope as you all move forward that you
> will take into consideration the thoughts of where a poster is coming from
> and that person is human too.
>
> Grateful,
> Sunni Battin
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to
> identify
> > themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with
> legitimate
> > concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being
> > solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than
> > anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that
> > intimidation.
> >
> > As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that if
> > someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging
> > information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations
> for
> > asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would use
> > sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for myself when
> i
> > say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Natasha Allen (she/her)
> > System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library
> > San José State University
> > 1 Washington Square
> > San José , CA 95192
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 408-808-2655
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:23 AM Tom Johnson <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
> >>
> >> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can
> >> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both
> >> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that
> >> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of posts
> >> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, any
> rule
> >> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and
> topics.
> >>
> >> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit,
> excluding
> >> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the
> discussion
> >> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be
> excluded:
> >> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, but
> i'd
> >> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable
> >> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community.
> unless
> >> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy
> bosses,
> >> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry
> very
> >> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice.
> >>
> >> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to
> identify
> >> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with
> legitimate
> >> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information
> being
> >> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate
> than
> >> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that
> >> intimidation.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> tom
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:14 AM Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
> >>>
> >>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can
> >>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both
> >>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that
> >>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of posts
> >>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, any
> >> rule
> >>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and
> topics.
> >>>
> >>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit,
> excluding
> >>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the
> >> discussion
> >>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be
> excluded:
> >>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, but
> >> i'd
> >>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable
> >>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community.
> >> unless
> >>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy
> bosses,
> >>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry
> >> very
> >>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice.
> >>>
> >>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to
> >> identify
> >>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with
> >> legitimate
> >>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information
> being
> >>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate
> than
> >>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that
> >>> intimidation.
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>>
> >>> tom
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:23 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems like
> >>>> there is a good technical reason for doing so. To disallow the
> >>>> LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some participant's mail
> >> from
> >>>> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" status by the
> >>>> receiving mail agent).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good reasons to use
> >>>> them (as have been described in other messages in this thread). The
> >> use of
> >>>> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that signal into
> >>>> account as they read and consider the content of the message. I
> >> wouldn't
> >>>> want to see aliases banned from the list. I think it is also a health
> >>>> practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever possible so
> >>>> community members get to know each other.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Peter Murray
> >>>> Open Source Community Advocate
> >>>> Index Data, LLC
> >>>> On Jul 12, 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>,
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called DMARC, it
> >>>> is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have your
> >>>> email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a feature.
> [0]
> >>>> Yes, direct replies to an address like
> >>>> [log in to unmask] do make it back to the
> >>>> original sender, but without some sort of signature can be very
> >> difficult
> >>>> to know to whom one is replying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily identifiable.
> One
> >>>> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their
> >> affiliation,
> >>>> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, and
> 2)
> >>>> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message you
> can
> >>>> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my address
> >> is
> >>>> [log in to unmask] The posting above works because there is/was a full
> >>>> signature. Postings from [log in to unmask] are difficult
> to
> >>>> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM <
> >>>> [log in to unmask]> with no signature I
> >> think
> >>>> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you are a
> >>>> dog." [1]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp
> >>>>> [1] dog -
> >>>>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
|