 |
 |
All, Please feel free to make the changes you'd like to see and then submit a pull request. I have added instructions for how to do this in the README: https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy I say this not to shame anyone in the jerky "patches welcome!" sense, but as an acknowledgement that the way shiz gets done in code4lib is for each of us to take individual initiative. You're all empowered to do so. I look forward to seeing your changes in the repo. -Mike On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'd support removing or somehow couching language about any organizer, > including any volunteer, immediately ending a talk. > > All the other sanctions seem to involve the likelihood of deliberation > involving some time and multiple people, and some possibility of a > misunderstanding being cleared up. I don't think a single volunteer—who, in > theory, is granted the power to ban someone for life!—is going to ban > someone or refuse to post a talk online without thinking about it for a > while and involving other organizers. > > By their nature, however, something said in the middle of a talk doesn't > admit of much in the way of deliberation between organizers, or time to > deliberate, and you can't really finish a talk ended by someone if other > organizers persuade the volunteer that they made a mistake. The action has > to be taken quickly, by someone who hasn't talked it through with others > and is largely irreversible. It's a recipe for controversy and > disagreement, and potential unfairness. > > I propose that the right reaction to an offensive talk is for people to > walk out of it while it's going on, and to deal with any sanctions required > AFTER the talk is over, when there's time and space to get the decision > right. > > Sincerely, > > Tim Spalding > LibraryThing >