It seems to me that the Antiharassment Policy on GitHub covers more than
just conference cases; Conflict Resolution #2 specifically mentions IRC and
the listserv. Though in places it's a bit focused on the conference (e.g.
the contact information section under Sanctions).
Perhaps the right thing to do would be to reword the policy with broader
scope? Having a full-time Antiharassment Team also seems like a good idea,
then there's a consistent contact whether an incident occurs at a
conference or online.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]>
> As I recall, the community discussion surrounding the CodeOfConduct4Lib
> intended to make its application broader than in-person events such as the
> conferences. Since Coral described Geek Feminism as an anarchist
> collective (sounding very similar to Code4Lib in that respect), I went to
> read their Code of Conduct with an eye towards how they apply sanctions to
> a community without boundaries of who can participate. After all, it is
> one thing to have the power to expel someone from a physical meeting venue;
> it is quite another to try to expel someone from a virtual space with
> self-selected aliases and e-mail addresses. The GF sanctions part reads:
> > Consequences
> > Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply
> > If a participant engages in harassing behavior, the Geek Feminism
> Anti-Abuse Team may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and
> including expulsion from all Geek Feminism spaces and identification of the
> participant as a harasser to other GF members or the general public.
> I think that is probably the best we could do in Code4Lib spaces as well.
> What I do like about the GF statement is the inclusion of a “Anti-Abuse
> Team” with rotating representatives. We have the designated conference
> representatives and the @helpers on the IRC channel, but having a team that
> crosses all spaces would help provide strength in cohesiveness. I presume
> there is also a manual of practices that the team follows to investigate
> reports. (If there is, I’d like to adopt and adapt that, too.)
> On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:33 PM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > In particular, we'd need to think about how to shape the sanctions
> > 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)
> > language.
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> Peter Murray
> Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
> [log in to unmask]
> +1 678-235-2955
> 800.999.8558 x2955