 |
 |
I, for one, really appreciate those who volunteered their time to be duty officers. I saw there are only 7 people who volunteered [1]. Would some more people consider to put their name as well, at least as backup(s) for the duty officer during the shift? (alas, I'm not going to this year's code4lib so I can't volunteer.) Thanks for considering. ranti. [1] http://wiki.code4lib.org/Duty_Officers#Proposed_2016_Duty_Officers On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Bulk mail. Postage paid.