You are correct in that we are compiling feedback on possible duty officers. Going back to Chad's call for volunteers email [1], here is the brief description of what the officers will be and will not be doing: Briefly, a duty officers is: - a highly visible point of contact for conference attendees for any possible enforcement or violation of the #codeofconduct4lib - responsible for taking initial reports of problems and referring them to conference organizers or to appropriate services - willing to be interrupted from regular conference program or activities during their shift Duty officers are not: - expected to answer general queries for the conference - responsible for handling incidents beyond the initial report - expected to perform duties of professional counselors, security, or other emergency professionals - only to refer to professional services when deemed appropriate And a little bit of context - the duty officer roll came out of the discussion on a pull request on GitHub [2] as a way to address the lack of formal reporting and enforcement procedures of the #codeofconduct4lib faced by last year's local planning committee. This is a step to help remedy the current deficiency so future local planning committees are able to have a real-life, actionable procedural structure in place instead of trying to create that procedure on the fly. So, we cannot pull names from a hat if these folks are going to help the local planning committee in implementing the #codeofconduct4lib. Pulling names from a hat completely removes much needed context in the selection process. If I remember correctly, there was a code4lib talk some time ago that touched on considering various contexts surrounding technology... [Planning ahead? Actual procedures? In code4lib? What a strange time we live in...] [1] https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1602&L=CODE4LIB&F=&S=&P=76899 [2] https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/pull/53 On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Apologies for the short reply with my manager's hat firmly in place - > > transparency is good, but there are times when a particular process or > > discussion should not be public. Given the sensitive nature of some of > the > > feedback that might be presented about particular individuals, > transparency > > would not be a good fit for the feedback process. > > > > For clarity, am I correct in understanding we are collecting feedback only > on those volunteering to become duty officers, and not on those who > compile/manage harassment information nor on those responsible for > determining what actions to take in response to incidents of harassment? > > kyle >