 |
 |
Thanks, Kate. Based upon the posts earlier, I received the distinct impression that the anonymity discussion is meant to put unecessary boundaries around the second issue. On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:35 PM Kate Deibel < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > While Risa was spot on with my criticisms about the survey approach, I > want to be clear that there are two issues here. > > One is having a policy for when it does come to research collection > related to the community and setting standards for what we expect to see. > This is especially true when it comes to sensitive topics. > > The second issue is the debate that came up about topics are "permitted" > in this community. > > The proposed code of conduct changes address both. The current > conversation about anonymity only concerns the first, unless one intends to > use the absence of anonymity to make this a difficult place to discuss a > multitude of issues that don't involve programming languages. > > Katherine Deibel | PhD > Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian > Syracuse University Libraries > T 315.443.7178 > [log in to unmask] > 222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244 > Syracuse University > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Josh > Welker > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 12:26 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note > [admiistratativia]" > > I agree with Kate here. This seems too much like those cases where one > patron leaves an empty bag of chips on a table, so the whole library > plasters obnoxious "NO FOOD ON THE TABLES" signs all over and creates a > 12-person ad hoc committee to discuss food policies. I don't think we need > to create a formal policy based on what happened here except maybe a > statement that we will not passive-aggressively shut down conversations > about sensitive issues due to being deemed off-topic. > > Joshua Welker > Library Systems and Discovery Coordinator James C. Kirkpatrick Library > University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093 JCKL 2260 > 660.543.8022 > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:19 AM S B < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > In at least one initial post early on, I did identify myself. I think > > this is a considerate group of professionals and I would like for you > > to consider some things: > > > > -The survey was anonymous. Anyone could have emailed me at any time > > with questions on more specifics about the survey and some did and I > > answered those questions. I understand that some disagree with the > > oath I took on that. I have heard from some of you and in the future, > > I will make some if the suggested modifications. > > > > -Throughout the time of collecting information and writing part one of > > the series on sexual harassment in libraries, I received some very > > critical and negative messages. In part one of the series, I revealed > > my own experience with sexual harassment, outside the library > > profession, in the author’s note. I decided to do this at the last > > moment. When you get your in box filled with with some mean messages, > > it is not fun and when you get called out, it is also not fun. When I > > revealed my own experience with sexual harassment, it was certainly my > > own choice but also putting yourself out there. Even though I am the > > writer, I still have a right to privacy and right to protect myself from > in some cases cruel messages. > > > > -I am human and nothing I ever do will be perfect including parts of > > the investigative process. Some things could have done differently > > and I have already taken owner that. > > > > I appreciate you reading this and I hope as you all move forward that > > you will take into consideration the thoughts of where a poster is > > coming from and that person is human too. > > > > Grateful, > > Sunni Battin > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:49 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_d > > og > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > -- Risa Wolf Senior Product Manager, E-Reading Digital The New York Public Library 445 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016 212-621-0543 nypl.org