Salvete!


> So far some brave folks have indeed indicated that, but without specifying any 
> particular incidents.
> 

    Mmm hmm. I'd assume that comes from a desire to not beat summat really uncomfy to death. (Too late.)


> It seems to me it might be helpful if the actual incidents were related in some 
> anonymous way (perhaps anonymous both to reporter and to 'offenders' 
> involved)... because if the rest of us knew what was going on, we could be more 
> alert to seeing it and stopping it (including possibly observing such behavior 
> in ourselves and stopping ourselves for doing it, now that we realize how 
> hurtful it can be).
> 

    Kind of, but really sit and think on this for a second. If someone is so clueless that they cross the line without realising it, the likelihood of them doing so again is pretty high regardless of whether it's logged or no.

    I *think* Karen linked up a blog post someplace that was pretty explicit, though not at all related to Code4Lib. Have you thumbed through the github and discussion links? A lot of that stuff is useful in this regard.

    If you're truly interested in stopping the cycle, you can always attend an anti sexual harassment session or workshop. Anecdotally, pretty much every time I've ever been in an awkward setting, people are way more like to look at their feet than actually stop stuff from happening.
        

>
> I also realize that this can quickly turn into a giant mess, which is why 
> I'd suggest that any such stories be very vague and entirely anonymous as to 
> all parties involved, to make this not a tribunal about particular incidents but 
> just information sharing about "Here are some things that have happened at 
> code4lib related to gendery stuff, that made some people uncomfortable, just so 
> you know what we're talking about."
> 

    If they're *that* vague, then they prolly won't be terribly useful. Furthermore, don't you think this kind of adds an extra burden to someone that's already not feeling so comfy?


> There doesn't need to be ANY discussion of the issues, and I think probably 
> best if there isn't actually.
> 

    I sort of understood what you were getting at until you said this. Now I have no idea what you want.


> Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If it's a 
> good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can easily 
> anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT calling 
> specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is that has happened 
> that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)

    I do not like this, Sam I Am.

Cheers,
Brooke