In the interest of documentation and keeping similar threads together (and
in the vein of Sean's comment about pull requests), I've started an issue
at https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/issues/46 for folks
who want to hammer out the specifics there.
In addition, if you want to make changes to the
https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy docs and are not sure
where to start (or don't want to create an account, or just not sure what
the heck a 'pull request' means) give me a holler - it will at least give
me a small break from dealing with ILS In Transit location drama at MPOW
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Sean Hannan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Pull requests welcome.
> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Andreas
> Orphanides [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 9:33 PM
> To: [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