 |
 |
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. Thanks, Becky On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Eric Phetteplace <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think we're all perfectly fine with discussing this issue in the open, by > all means let's do that. The Code of Conduct on GitHub is a shining example > of this; the whole discussion is in the open and you can see the > conversations around particular passages unfold in the issues queue. The > problem is discussing specific concerns one has with *individuals.* That > does not feel appropriate for a public listserv, whether we're talking > about a victim, harasser, or potential duty officer. > > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I do not see how the inability to voice > concerns about individuals stops us from having a general conversation on > how to be an inclusive and safe community. Much as we can "improve > everyone's skills", as preconferences of the past have done, while *also* > having designated duty officers with a specific responsibility. These are > not mutually exclusive and indeed are complimentary. > > Best, > Eric > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > We live in a world where the are repercussions of calling out people for > > sexual harassment. Not to put too fine a point on it, we live in a world > > where people were recently sued for doing just that. So I think it's > > completely necessary to have an anonymous method of raising concerns, if > > you really want people to raise concerns with the conference organizers. > > > > -Esmé > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Feedback about proposed duty officers can be emailed to directly to > me, > > >> [log in to unmask], or submitted via this anonymous form > > >> <http://goo.gl/forms/YKfWRwyiOr>. > > >> > > > > > > > > > It's unfortunate people feel a need to move discussions offline -- I > > > interpret this as meaning some people are afraid of repercussions for > > > respectfully sharing thoughts on an issue that affects everyone. > > > > > > I believe we agree as a community we cannot be our best if the ideas > and > > > talents of any group are excluded. I believe we agree specific measures > > are > > > needed to overcome structural barriers and provide opportunities to > broad > > > groups of people who still can't participate in the technology > community > > on > > > an equal basis. > > > > > > To be direct, I have concerns about the duty officer idea. I support > the > > > motivation behind the concept 100%. I have great respect for the people > > who > > > have stepped up on this issue, both as technologists and as people in > > > general. > > > > > > Being a self selected group, c4l has problems found in society at > large. > > If > > > the conference is at least as safe as other environments attendees > > > encounter such as airports, streets, bars, and restaurants, I would > hope > > > the conference organizers could address issues when self policing (i.e. > > > people looking out for each other) proved inadequate. > > > > > > My concern is that while harassment and assault are real issues, they > > have > > > taken a life of their own and divert too much focus from helping people > > and > > > improving everyone's skills to protecting people from attack. I fear > > these > > > well meaning measures do not improve safety and possibly harden the few > > > miscreants they're intended to mitigate. > > > > > > I hope my words will be perceived in the spirit intended. > > > > > > kyle > > >