Maybe it would be better to have an odd number of people for the group in
case of disagreement? 9 or 11 people would ensure nothing got stuck
Library Assistant - Discovery Services
Simmons College Library
300 The Fenway
Boston, MA 02115
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Riley Childs <[log in to unmask]>
> Sanctions, block in IRC? That would require mods or chanserv, right?
> Temporary ban from mailing list?
> I think it should be a rotating group of 10 people who vote on this,
> randomly picked (everyone gets a number and a program picks 10?) to
> eliminate politics of any sort, of course 10 is arbitrary.
> I think an arbitrator should randomly be selected from the 10 on a case by
> case basis?
> Just a few suggestions...
> And what is harassment? It can only be defined to a point, it is really on
> an individual level, the person being harassed defines it.
> Riley Childs
> Asst. Head of IT Services
> Charlotte United Christian Academy
> (704) 497-2086
> Sent from my Windows Phone, please excuse mistakes
> From: Andreas Orphanides<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 7/2/2014 9:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Community anti-harassment policy
> In particular, we'd need to think about how to shape the sanctions section,
> including things like:
> - What's an appropriate sanction in non-conference setting X?
> - Who is empowered to enact sanctions?
> - If a participant feels they have been harassed, who do they contact
> and how?
> - possibly other stuff?
> I think the conflict resolution part is in better shape, though it would
> need a little cleanup for more universal (i.e., not conference-specific)
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]>
> > My cursory web search came up with the one that was developed for the
> > recent conference, but it's not clear to me what the breadth of the
> > document is supposed to include. I think it was applied to the IRC
> > during the conference, but if it was written specifically as a conference
> > policy, it's probably worth revisiting to ensure that it covers
> > needed community-wide outside of conference time as well.
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> [log in to unmask]
> > > wrote:
> >> I was under the impression that we had a code of conduct/anti-harassment
> >> policy in place for IRC and the mailing lists. Was this an incorrect
> >> impression?
> >> I am definitely in favor of adopting one, if there isn't one in place!
> >> Logistically, Geek Feminism is also not a formal organization--they were
> >> recently described as an anarchist collective--so I think we could
> >> their lead pretty easily. We could make a mail alias that goes to a
> >> ROTATING team/committee (this is very important; people burn out,
> >> with these things for too long), for reporting purposes. IRC aliases
> are a
> >> thing, too, right?
> >> -coral