LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  January 2013

CODE4LIB January 2013

Subject:

Re: Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

From:

Ian Walls <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:46:28 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (192 lines)

+1

Perhaps, instead of a policy document (which is inherently rules-based), we
have a statement of belief and a pledge to stand by it (which is more of a
good-faith social contract).  Those of us who believe in it could sign it in
some way, perhaps through GitHub  This way we'd still have a document to
point people at, but we wouldn't have to worry about coding up rules that
work for every conceivable situation.

A basic statement of belief:

We don't believe that people should harm each other.

The basic situations we'd need to cover are:

a) I am harmed by someone - a pledge to speak up, either to the person
directly or to someone else in the community
b) someone is harmed by me - a pledge to review my behavior and take
appropriate action (apologize, or explain why I feel the behavior is
justified)
c) someone is harmed by someone else - a pledge to be willing to listen to
both parties, and form our opinions of the situation in light of the
statement of belief

Do you all think something like this would work for the whole community?


-Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

>  The best way, in my mind,
is to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok
with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll
think about that." 

I think that's a really good to try to create, Karen says it just right.
Note that "OK, I'll think about it" is neither "No, you must be mistaken"
nor "Okay, I will immediately do whatever you ask of me."  But it does need
to be a legitimate actual "I'll think about it", seriously. 

The flip side is that the culture is also one where when someone says "you
know, I'm not ok with that kind of remark", it often means "And I'd like you
to think about that, in a real serious way" rather than "And I expect you to
immediately change your behavior to acede to my demands."

Of course, what creates that, from both ends, is a culture of trust.  Which
I think code4lib actually has pretty a pretty decent dose of already, let's
try to keep it that way. (In my opinion, one way we keep it that way is by
continuing to resist becoming a formal rules-based bueurocratic
organization, rather than a community based on social ties and good faith). 

Now, at some times it might really be neccesary to say "And I expect you to
immediately stop what you're doing and do it exactly like I say."  Other
times it's not.  But in our society as a whole, we are so trained to think
that everything must be rules-based rather than based on good faith trust
between people who care about each other, that we're likely to asume that
"you know, i'm not ok with that remark" ALWAYS implies "And therefore I
think you are an awful person, and your only hope of no longer being an
awful person is to immediately do exactly what I say."  Rather than "And I
expect you to think about this seriously, and maybe get back to me on what
you think."  So if you do mean the second one when saying "you know, i'm not
ok with that remark", it can be helpful to say so, to elicit the
self-reflection you want, rather than defensiveness.  And of course, on the
flip-side, it is obviously helpful if you can always respond to "you know,
i'm really not okay with that"!
  with reflection, rather than defensiveness. 
________________________________________
From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Karen Coyle
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)

On 1/24/13 3:09 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>
>
> To be clear, I am only uncomfortable with "uncomfortable" being used 
> in the policy because I wouldn't support it being there. Differing 
> opinions can make people uncomfortable.  Since I am not going to stop 
> sharing what may be a dissenting opinion, should I be banned?

I can't come up with a word for it that is unambiguous, but I can propose a
scenario. Imagine a room at a conference full of people -- and that there
are only a few people of color. A speaker gets up and shows or says
something racist. It may be light-hearted in nature, but the people of color
in that almost-all-white audience feel....
uncomfortable/insulted/discriminated against.

I had a great example that I can no longer find -- I think it came through
on Twitter. It showed a fake ad with an image of border patrol agents
rounding up "illegal aliens" in the desert, and used the ad copy:
"We can take care of all of your papers" as the ad line for a business
computing company. It's a "joke" that you can almost imagine someone
actually doing. Any latinos in the audience would be within their rights of
jumping up and shouting at the speaker, but in fact sexism and racism work
precisely because people struggling for equal status are least likely to
gain that status if they speak up against the status quo. What I think we
want to change is the social acceptance of speaking up.

There's a difference between an intellectual disagreement (I think the earth
is round/I think the earth is flat) and insulting who a person is as a
person. The various "*isms* (sexism, racism, homophobia) have a demeaning
nature, and there is an inherent lowering of status of the targeted group.
Booth babes at professional conferences are demeaning to women because they
present women as non-professional sex objects, and that view generally
lowers the social and intellectual status of women in the eyes of attendees,
including the professional women who are attending. Because of this, many
conferences now ban booth babes. No conference has banned discussion of
alternate views of the universe.

It's hard to find a balance between being conscious of other peoples'
sensibilities and creating a chilling effect. The best way, in my mind, is
to somehow create a culture where someone can say: "you know, I'm not ok
with that kind of remark" and the person spoken to can respond "OK, I'll
think about that." If, however, every "I'm not ok" becomes a battle, then we
aren't doing it right. The reason why it shouldn't be a battle is that there
is no absolute right or wrong. If someone tells you "You're standing too
close" then you know you've violated a personal space limit that is specific
to that person. You don't know why. But there's nothing to argue about --
it's how that person feels. All you have to do is listen, and be
considerate. Eventually we all learn about each other. It's an interaction,
not an interdiction.

kc


>
> It's an anti-harassment policy, not a comfort policy.  If you want to 
> see something different, it seems that now is the time to step up and 
> change it. :)
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Shaun Ellis
>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 10:38 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Group Decision Making (was Zoia)
>>
>>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even 
>>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in 
>>> context, rather than in the abstract?
>>>
>>
>> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a 
>> set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more 
>> uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon 
>> way to handle it.
>>
>> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems 
>> there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what 
>> type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
>>
>> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub 
>> issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get 
>> resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the 
>> forks, or "no policy at all".
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>
>> --
>> 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."
>>
>
>

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager