As Anne notes in her message, she, Francis and I committed to this publicly
at Code4lib 2019; for reference, here's the lightning talk I gave:

Slides: http://bit.ly/c4l19-csv
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXYIjJrfqnI#t=49m43s

thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:35 AM Anne Slaughter <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Seconding Francis' points, and adding that this "failure" does not rest on
> his shoulders. Mark, Francis, and I publicly committed in San Jose to
> working to expand the role of the CSS/CSVs to better support the community
> in situations like this. This work unfortunately hasn't been on any of our
> front burners yet for all the reasons you might suspect in a volunteer
> leadership role. But we have a systemic issue with the community's code of
> conduct. It is written to specifically restrict enforcement to the annual
> conference, which by definition doesn't give any clear or transparent
> guidance in dealing with issues outside of the conference proceedings. The
> work to address that starts now with the process Bobbi introduces in her
> message, and I assure you that we are committed to doing it openly. It's
> absolutely not ideal that it's happening in a reactive rather than
> proactive state, and for that I apologize as well.
>
> Anne Slaughter
> Director of Technology Services
> Reaching Across Illinois Library System
> Burr Ridge Office
> Phone: 630.734.5127
> Fax: 630.734.5050
> [log in to unmask]
> https://www.railslibraries.info
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM -0500, "Francis Kayiwa" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> Heya Kate my responses interleaved. For starters if there's any opacity
> I will take this as my fault/oversight. You, Anne, Mark and I spoke in
> San Jose about the transition to the CSSCSV group after the conference
> and promised to work on this once we were done. Unfortunately I've been
> dealing with lots of personal grief and this took less priority....
>
> On 7/3/19 12:37 PM, Kate Deibel wrote:
> > Honestly, this is worrisome to me.
> >
> > First, who are the members of the Community Support Squad? I can find no
> mention of it anywhere on the website or the wiki. And it's disturbing that
> such a group let such a coincidence in lack of coverage occur. Yes, there
> were people listed for the 2019 conference, but to our knowledge, that was
> to be only for the conference.
>
> It is the same group that was volunteered at the conference.
>
> https://2019.code4lib.org/conduct/#officers
>
> We didn't expect every one to want to continue but all the volunteers
> offered to hang on during the transition process which once again I
> failed to deliver on.
>
> >
> > Two, shutting down any conversation while an unknown cabal (redundant, I
> know) discusses a solution that is to come with no projected timeline not
> only shuts down hurt but also prevents people from speaking up against any
> hurt that has or is still happening. Imagine if you had done this exact
> intervention yesterday after the emails about how the C4L mailing list was
> only to about CODE. You would have prevented the many posters who stood up
> to counter that narrative. Any teaching moments or learning that have come
> afterwards would also have been squashed. All that would remain would be
> the unchallenged statements of what the C4L community is only about: code.
> That silence would speak way more hurt. Sure, the Community Support Squad
> will eventually raise a solution... I mean a "pull request"...
>
> Bobbi pointed out (and I told you about a week ago via our DM twitter
> that we were mostly out). Now it is fair to imagine if I'd actually
> followed through on establishing a CSSCSV group as I promised you that
> this perhaps could have been handled very differently. Again. Blame me
> for this and that would be fair.
>
> >
> > It's uncomfortably ironic in that this conversation started with
> concerns about the transparency of the authorship and the procedures behind
> the sexual harassment articles but is now being "handled" by an opaque
> process where we are told to wait until the mystery box goes ping.
> >
>
> I disagree here. The process isn't opaque. The processes will be
> discussed and we welcome PR's via the aforementioned pull request.
> Furthermore if that doesn't work, you and others are welcome to send
> messages to [log in to unmask]
>
> I want to stress, I've gone rogue here and I am speaking without
> consulting with the rest of the CSSCSV team.
>
> Cheers,
> ./fxk
>