Jenn-

Sorry — I merged the other PR prematurely. I didn't mean to short-circuit discussion here, and I would be happy to revert that change if anyone would like me to do that.

Since the other PR is open for comments (https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/pull/80), I think it's probably better to just resolve the discussion there.

-Esmé

> On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> This PR to the CoC was merged more than a week ago:
>
> https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/commit/b6cc99c7b7e16cdf278b5c4565d661ba53c011ea
>
>
> I think (????????? see GH comments previously) that is different from the
> PR that was announced for comments. This PR introduced (again I think??)
> this language which talks about how anonymity should be handled. I don't
> think this implies any fundamental change to the functioning of the list. I
> am a little confused why this PR was merged without discussion but the
> other PR announced and what process is actually happening.
>
> jenn
>
> ### Anonymity
>
> In general the community prefers to know who is writing. Exceptions may
> arise when the you feel at risk; in that case, the you may contact one or
> more [Community Support Volunteers](css_volunteers.md) for help forwarding
> your message. At the least, your message should include a *reason* for why
> you are choosing to be anonymous. For example:
>
> * "I'm looking for advice on how to present myself for another job, but my
> boss doesn't know I'm looking"
> * "I'd like some advice in dealing with a programming
> conflict, and other members of the team are on this list"
>
> ### Surveys
>
> If you wish to ask people on the listserv to participate in a survey, you
> should minimally identify:
>
> * yourself
> * purpose of the survey
> * the reason you're asking **in this listserv**
> * what kinds of information you're collecting
> * (if collecting identifying information such as email address, name), what
> you plan to do with it, and how you'll keep it secure.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:26 AM EDWIN VINCENT SPERR <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I personally agree that requiring verified identities for posters is
>> potentially *really* disruptive to the list. It seems a disproportionate
>> response to what is still mostly a theoretical risk.
>>
>> I also trust that any changes to the fundamental functioning of this list
>> would only be undertaken after a period of broad discussion followed by a
>> (very) formal vote. This list is common property and is still a primary
>> communication channel for this community. Decisions regarding changes to
>> it's function (or the rules that govern its participants) should be made
>> democratically.
>>
>>
>> Edwin V. Sperr, MLIS
>> AU/UGA Medical Partnership
>> Office of Graduate Medical Education
>> Clinical Information Librarian
>>
>> St. Mary’s Hospital
>> 1230 Baxter Street
>> Athens, GA 30606
>>
>> p: 706-389-3864
>> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | [log in to unmask]<mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> w: medicalpartnership.usg.edu<http://www.medicalpartnership.usg.edu/>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Natasha
>> Allen <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:29 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note
>> [admiistratativia]"
>>
>> [External Sender]
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thank you for responding with your clarifications. Much appreciated.
>>
>> Natasha
>>
>> ---
>> 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 1:08 PM Tom Johnson <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> my apologies. my implication was not at all meant along these lines.
>>>
>>> on the contrary, i think the transparency issues in this case are utterly
>>> clear. the work undertaken by yourself and others to address them has my
>>> complete support.
>>>
>>> what i object to is the idea, as exemplified in Eric's posts of June 28,
>>> that unsigned posts to this board constitute suspicious activity and that
>>> the normal administrative response is to de-anonymize in order to "get
>> rid
>>> of them". i'm not aware of that being a practice here. if it has been,
>> i'm
>>> extremely uncomfortable with it. in either case, Eric's reference to this
>>> enforcement practice was sudden, apparently unconnected to any documented
>>> policy or process, and coupled with claims that the entire subject matter
>>> of sexual harassment is unwelcome on this board. this combination seems
>>> chilling to me; it certainly makes /me/ reluctant to continue my limited
>>> participation here. this is what i meant by "intimidation".
>>>
>>> again, apologies for the confusion. i was initially reluctant to be so
>>> direct about attributing issues to specific posts or people. it's clear
>> to
>>> me now that if i'm going to chime in, that directness is called for.
>>>
>>> - tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:50 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>