Wow. We could not have gotten a better follow-up to our long thread 
about coders and non-coders.

I don't git. I've used it to read code, but never contributed. I even 
downloaded a gui with a cute icon that is supposed to make it easy, and 
it still is going to take some learning.

So I'm afraid that it either needs to be on a different platform for 
editing, OR someone (you know, the famed "someone") is going to have to 
do updates for us non-gitters.

kc

On 11/30/12 7:36 AM, Michael J. Giarlo wrote:
> All,
>
> Please feel free to make the changes you'd like to see and then submit a
> pull request.  I have added instructions for how to do this in the README:
>
> https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy
>
> I say this not to shame anyone in the jerky "patches welcome!" sense, but
> as an acknowledgement that the way shiz gets done in code4lib is for each
> of us to take individual initiative.  You're all empowered to do so.  I
> look forward to seeing your changes in the repo.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I'd support removing or somehow couching language about any organizer,
>> including any volunteer, immediately ending a talk.
>>
>> All the other sanctions seem to involve the likelihood of deliberation
>> involving some time and multiple people, and some possibility of a
>> misunderstanding being cleared up. I don't think a single volunteer—who, in
>> theory, is granted the power to ban someone for life!—is going to ban
>> someone or refuse to post a talk online without thinking about it for a
>> while and involving other organizers.
>>
>> By their nature, however, something said in the middle of a talk doesn't
>> admit of much in the way of deliberation between organizers, or time to
>> deliberate, and you can't really finish a talk ended by someone if other
>> organizers persuade the volunteer that they made a mistake. The action has
>> to be taken quickly, by someone who hasn't talked it through with others
>> and is largely irreversible. It's a recipe for controversy and
>> disagreement, and potential unfairness.
>>
>> I propose that the right reaction to an offensive talk is for people to
>> walk out of it while it's going on, and to deal with any sanctions required
>> AFTER the talk is over, when there's time and space to get the decision
>> right.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Tim Spalding
>> LibraryThing
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet