After further thought, I'm uncomfortable with the word "uncomfortable", 
and I regret using it.  In fact, it doesn't appear in the 
anti-harrassment policy at all.  I think the essence of the policy is to 
provide a "safe" and "non-threatening" space.  I can only speak for 
myself, but I'm not committed to creating a "comfortable" space, at 
least based on any vague definition of "comfort".

Discomfort is often where dialogue and learning occur.  PHP developers 
will not feel "comfortable" when many of the top talkers are Ruby 
enthusiasts.  Do we ask them to stop when they curse PHP, or perceive 
they are wrongly discriminating against it? No. We challenge their 
assumptions and learn about the differences, or we see it for a 
religious war timesuck and don't participate.  I see no way for Code4Lib 
to regulate comfort, and doing so would lessen the value it provides.

If there is something someone says or does that is unacceptable to me, I 
calmly let them know how I feel and why.  It's unrealistic to expect any 
behavior to change if you don't take the responsibility to address it 
when and where it happens.

Karen, you bring up a good point when you ask about interpretation and 
enforcement of the policy, should someone be personally attacked or 
harassed on the basis of gender, race, age, etc. How does anyone know 
whether the anti-harrassment policy, or which revision, has actually 
been adopted and accepted by the group?  Because no one has objected? 
Because it's under github/code4lib?  There's only a handful of 
"signatures" on it.

How are revisions proposed and made?  Sure, someone can submit changes, 
but they are only merged with the consent/approval of the github 
admin(s) -- and none of this is done on list because it's a separate 
system that has way more usable tools for discussing proposed changes. 
That puts the admins in the precarious role of deciding what gets in or 
not -- essentially a role of governance that they may not have asked 
for.  It can also lead to the perception that changes are made "behind 
closed doors" if revisions are not first proposed to and debated on "the 
list".  Is that an acceptable process?

Any group decision in the past has been done via diebold-o-tron.  Do we 
need a vote to "ratify" the anti-harrassment policy and an appropriate 
process for changes?

-Shaun




On 1/23/13 7:12 PM, Fitchett, Deborah wrote:
> Shaun: and yet when people spoke up on this mailing list about not being comfortable with Zoia, part of the response included people telling them essentially "you're spoiling our fun".
>
> It wasn't the only response, and I do note that things seem to be moving to reforming Zoia, which contributes to this group feeling pretty good on the whole. But it was still a *noticeable* response, so messages implying that current culture/procedures are sufficient without continuing discussion seem premature.
>
> Deborah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shaun Ellis
> Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013 5:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Zoia
>
> Karen, yes, there is a procedure for dealing with speaking up:
>
> // Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. If a participant engages in harassing behavior, organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender, expulsion from the Code4Lib event, or banning the offender from a chatroom or mailing list. // [1]
>
> It's easier to sense someone's discomfort in person.  But in IRC, there's no way to tell and the issue can only be addressed if someone speaks up.
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md
>
> -Shaun
>
> On 1/23/13 10:28 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> "Speak up" only works if the speaker is treated with respect. If,
>> instead, the speaker is assailed with a litany of "you shouldn't think
>> that" and "you're spoiling our fun", then I doubt if you will get many
>> speakers.
>>
>> There needs to be a procedure for dealing with "speaking up" that
>> doesn't resemble a public drubbing. Until that is added into the
>> policy, the policy itself is a false promise and likely to make things
>> worse for anyone speaking up, rather than better.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/13 5:21 AM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>>> Isn't this why we have an anti-harrassment policy?  Why not hold zoia
>>> (and all bots) accountable to the code of conduct like everyone else?
>>>
>>> If zoia says something that makes you feel uncomfortable, then speak
>>> up and we will take appropriate measures by removing the plugin or
>>> removing that response from the data set.  Let's not over-think it.
>>>
>>> -Shaun
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/22/13 10:56 PM, Bill Dueber wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Genny Engel <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Guess there's no groundswell of support for firing Zoia and
>>>>> replacing her/it with a GLaDOS irc bot, then?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm in. "We've both said things you're going to regret."
>>>>
>>>> [GLaDOS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glados> is the
>>>> really-quite-mean AI from the games Portal and Portal2]
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Genny Engel
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Guess there's no groundswell of support for firing Zoia and
>>>>> replacing her/it with a GLaDOS irc bot, then?
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sigh.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Genny Engel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Andromeda Yelton
>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:30 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Zoia
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I am both an active #libtechwomen participant and someone who
>>>>> is so thoroughly charmed by zoia I am frequently bothered she isn't
>>>>> right there *in my real life*.  (Yes, I have tried to issue zoia
>>>>> commands during face-to-face conversations with non-Code4Libbers.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think a collaboratively maintained bot with a highly open ethos
>>>>> is always going to end up with some things that cross people's
>>>>> lines, and that's an opportunity to talk about those lines and
>>>>> rearticulate our group norms.
>>>>>    And to that end, I'm in favor of weeding the collection of
>>>>> plugins, whether because of offensiveness or disuse.  (Perhaps this
>>>>> would be a good use of github's issue tracker, too?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think some sort of 'what's zoia and how can you contribute'
>>>>> link would be useful in any welcome-newbie plugin; it did take me a
>>>>> while to figure out what was going on there.  (Just as it took me
>>>>> the while to acquire the tastes for, say, coffee, bourbon, and blue
>>>>> cheese, tastes which I would now defend ferociously.)
>>>>>
>>>>> But not having zoia would make me sad.  And defining zoia to be
>>>>> woman-unfriendly, when zoia-lovers and zoia-haters appear to span
>>>>> the gender spectrum and have a variety of reasons (both gendered
>>>>> and
>>>>> non) for
>>>>> their reactions, would make me sad too.
>>>>>
>>>>> @love zoia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andromeda
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shaun Ellis
> User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives Princeton University Library
>
>
> ________________________________
> P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
> "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use,
> distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender
> by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all attachments from your system."
>


-- 
Shaun Ellis
User Interace Developer, Digital Initiatives
Princeton University Library