 |
 |
No apology needed, honestly trying to get a grip on the process! On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:02 AM Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Jenn- > > Sorry — I merged the other PR prematurely. I didn't mean to short-circuit > discussion here, and I would be happy to revert that change if anyone would > like me to do that. > > Since the other PR is open for comments ( > https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/pull/80), I think it's > probably better to just resolve the discussion there. > > -Esmé > > > On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > This PR to the CoC was merged more than a week ago: > > > > > https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/commit/b6cc99c7b7e16cdf278b5c4565d661ba53c011ea > > > > > > I think (????????? see GH comments previously) that is different from the > > PR that was announced for comments. This PR introduced (again I think??) > > this language which talks about how anonymity should be handled. I don't > > think this implies any fundamental change to the functioning of the > list. I > > am a little confused why this PR was merged without discussion but the > > other PR announced and what process is actually happening. > > > > jenn > > > > ### Anonymity > > > > In general the community prefers to know who is writing. Exceptions may > > arise when the you feel at risk; in that case, the you may contact one or > > more [Community Support Volunteers](css_volunteers.md) for help > forwarding > > your message. At the least, your message should include a *reason* for > why > > you are choosing to be anonymous. For example: > > > > * "I'm looking for advice on how to present myself for another job, but > my > > boss doesn't know I'm looking" > > * "I'd like some advice in dealing with a programming > > conflict, and other members of the team are on this list" > > > > ### Surveys > > > > If you wish to ask people on the listserv to participate in a survey, you > > should minimally identify: > > > > * yourself > > * purpose of the survey > > * the reason you're asking **in this listserv** > > * what kinds of information you're collecting > > * (if collecting identifying information such as email address, name), > what > > you plan to do with it, and how you'll keep it secure. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:26 AM EDWIN VINCENT SPERR <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > >> I personally agree that requiring verified identities for posters is > >> potentially *really* disruptive to the list. It seems a disproportionate > >> response to what is still mostly a theoretical risk. > >> > >> I also trust that any changes to the fundamental functioning of this > list > >> would only be undertaken after a period of broad discussion followed by > a > >> (very) formal vote. This list is common property and is still a primary > >> communication channel for this community. Decisions regarding changes to > >> it's function (or the rules that govern its participants) should be made > >> democratically. > >> > >> > >> Edwin V. Sperr, MLIS > >> AU/UGA Medical Partnership > >> Office of Graduate Medical Education > >> Clinical Information Librarian > >> > >> St. Mary’s Hospital > >> 1230 Baxter Street > >> Athens, GA 30606 > >> > >> p: 706-389-3864 > >> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | [log in to unmask]<mailto: > >> [log in to unmask]> > >> w: medicalpartnership.usg.edu<http://www.medicalpartnership.usg.edu/> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Natasha > >> Allen <[log in to unmask]> > >> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:29 PM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note > >> [admiistratativia]" > >> > >> [External Sender] > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> Thank you for responding with your clarifications. Much appreciated. > >> > >> Natasha > >> > >> --- > >> Natasha Allen (she/her) > >> System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library > >> San José State University > >> 1 Washington Square > >> San José , CA 95192 > >> [log in to unmask] > >> 408-808-2655 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:08 PM Tom Johnson < > >> [log in to unmask]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that > >> if > >>> someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging > >>> information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations > >> for > >>> asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would use > >>> sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for myself > when > >> i > >>> say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation. > >>> > >>> my apologies. my implication was not at all meant along these lines. > >>> > >>> on the contrary, i think the transparency issues in this case are > utterly > >>> clear. the work undertaken by yourself and others to address them has > my > >>> complete support. > >>> > >>> what i object to is the idea, as exemplified in Eric's posts of June > 28, > >>> that unsigned posts to this board constitute suspicious activity and > that > >>> the normal administrative response is to de-anonymize in order to "get > >> rid > >>> of them". i'm not aware of that being a practice here. if it has been, > >> i'm > >>> extremely uncomfortable with it. in either case, Eric's reference to > this > >>> enforcement practice was sudden, apparently unconnected to any > documented > >>> policy or process, and coupled with claims that the entire subject > matter > >>> of sexual harassment is unwelcome on this board. this combination seems > >>> chilling to me; it certainly makes /me/ reluctant to continue my > limited > >>> participation here. this is what i meant by "intimidation". > >>> > >>> again, apologies for the confusion. i was initially reluctant to be so > >>> direct about attributing issues to specific posts or people. it's clear > >> to > >>> me now that if i'm going to chime in, that directness is called for. > >>> > >>> - tom > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:50 AM Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to > >>> identify > >>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with > >>> legitimate > >>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information > >> being > >>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate > >> than > >>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that > >>>> intimidation. > >>>> > >>>> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that > >> if > >>>> someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging > >>>> information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations > >>> for > >>>> asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would > use > >>>> sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for myself > >> when > >>> i > >>>> say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> Natasha Allen (she/her) > >>>> System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library > >>>> San José State University > >>>> 1 Washington Square > >>>> San José , CA 95192 > >>>> [log in to unmask] > >>>> 408-808-2655 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:23 AM Tom Johnson < > >>>> [log in to unmask]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy. > >>>>> > >>>>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can > >>>>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in > >> both > >>>>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument > >> that > >>>>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of > >> posts > >>>>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, > >> any > >>>> rule > >>>>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and > >>> topics. > >>>>> > >>>>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, > >>> excluding > >>>>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the > >>>> discussion > >>>>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be > >>> excluded: > >>>>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, > >> but > >>>> i'd > >>>>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly > >> reasonable > >>>>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community. > >>>> unless > >>>>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy > >>> bosses, > >>>>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry > >>>> very > >>>>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice. > >>>>> > >>>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to > >>>> identify > >>>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with > >>>> legitimate > >>>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information > >>> being > >>>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate > >>> than > >>>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that > >>>>> intimidation. > >>>>> > >>>>> best, > >>>>> > >>>>> tom > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:14 AM Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can > >>>>>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in > >>> both > >>>>>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument > >>> that > >>>>>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of > >>> posts > >>>>>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, > >>> any > >>>>> rule > >>>>>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and > >>>> topics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, > >>>> excluding > >>>>>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the > >>>>> discussion > >>>>>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be > >>>> excluded: > >>>>>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, > >>> but > >>>>> i'd > >>>>>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly > >>> reasonable > >>>>>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional > >> community. > >>>>> unless > >>>>>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy > >>>> bosses, > >>>>>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me > >> worry > >>>>> very > >>>>>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to > >>>>> identify > >>>>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with > >>>>> legitimate > >>>>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information > >>>> being > >>>>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to > >> intimidate > >>>> than > >>>>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that > >>>>>> intimidation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> tom > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:23 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems > >>> like > >>>>>>> there is a good technical reason for doing so. To disallow the > >>>>>>> LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some participant's > >>> mail > >>>>> from > >>>>>>> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" status by > >> the > >>>>>>> receiving mail agent). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good reasons to > >>> use > >>>>>>> them (as have been described in other messages in this thread). > >> The > >>>>> use of > >>>>>>> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that signal > >>> into > >>>>>>> account as they read and consider the content of the message. I > >>>>> wouldn't > >>>>>>> want to see aliases banned from the list. I think it is also a > >>> health > >>>>>>> practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever > >> possible > >>> so > >>>>>>> community members get to know each other. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Peter > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Peter Murray > >>>>>>> Open Source Community Advocate > >>>>>>> Index Data, LLC > >>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan < > >> [log in to unmask] > >>>> , > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called > >> DMARC, > >>>> it > >>>>>>> is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have > >>> your > >>>>>>> email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a > >> feature. > >>>> [0] > >>>>>>> Yes, direct replies to an address like > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] do make it back to > >>> the > >>>>>>> original sender, but without some sort of signature can be very > >>>>> difficult > >>>>>>> to know to whom one is replying. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily > >> identifiable. > >>>> One > >>>>>>> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their > >>>>> affiliation, > >>>>>>> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, > >> and > >>>> 2) > >>>>>>> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message > >> you > >>>> can > >>>>>>> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my > >>> address > >>>>> is > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] The posting above works because there is/was a > >> full > >>>>>>> signature. Postings from [log in to unmask] are > >> difficult > >>>> to > >>>>>>> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM < > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> with no signature > >> I > >>>>> think > >>>>>>> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you > >>> are a > >>>>>>> dog." [1] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp > >>>>>>>> [1] dog - > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >