+1 #everything that bess said


On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Bess Sadler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I am not aware of any recent egregious issues and I don't think code4lib
> is a hotbed of misogynist behavior, certainly not compared to more
> mainstream tech conferences or something notorious like DefCon. Having a
> policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and
> which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any
> individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for
> harassment. It protects conference organizers legally, it gives us an
> agreed upon way to respond if incidents do arise, and having such a policy
> is a proven way to make conferences more welcoming to women and gender
> minorities.
>
> I am not comfortable discussing my individual experience in public more
> than I already have. I have acted as a lightning rod for these kinds of
> discussions in the past and I am not interested in playing that role again.
>
> I am not comfortable discussing specific incidents that have been related
> to me in confidence, and I am REALLY not interested in rehashing more
> public incidents, I think that would be a train wreck. As for what has
> happened that we're trying to address: Sometimes people make thougtless
> jokes. Sometimes people say alienating things without meaning to. Sometimes
> people do things they might later wish they hadn't done, because they were
> drunk, or having a good time, or never knew a certain word carried a
> certain connotation for some people. These things are not really
> news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing
> how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss
> questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and
> how to make library technology more inclusive in general.
>
> Bess
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Michele R Combs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO.  Then the list can
> get back to code :)
> >
> > It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is
> comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or
> SAA function or, heck, your basic office party).  In that case, I submit
> that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same
> approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life.
> >
> > Michele
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
> Jonathan Rochkind [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
> >
> > ...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?)...
>