I think we're all perfectly fine with discussing this issue in the open, by
all means let's do that. The Code of Conduct on GitHub is a shining example
of this; the whole discussion is in the open and you can see the
conversations around particular passages unfold in the issues queue. The
problem is discussing specific concerns one has with *individuals.* That
does not feel appropriate for a public listserv, whether we're talking
about a victim, harasser, or potential duty officer.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I do not see how the inability to voice
concerns about individuals stops us from having a general conversation on
how to be an inclusive and safe community. Much as we can "improve
everyone's skills", as preconferences of the past have done, while *also*
having designated duty officers with a specific responsibility. These are
not mutually exclusive and indeed are complimentary.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
> We live in a world where the are repercussions of calling out people for
> sexual harassment. Not to put too fine a point on it, we live in a world
> where people were recently sued for doing just that. So I think it's
> completely necessary to have an anonymous method of raising concerns, if
> you really want people to raise concerns with the conference organizers.
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Feedback about proposed duty officers can be emailed to directly to me,
> >> [log in to unmask], or submitted via this anonymous form
> >> <http://goo.gl/forms/YKfWRwyiOr>.
> > It's unfortunate people feel a need to move discussions offline -- I
> > interpret this as meaning some people are afraid of repercussions for
> > respectfully sharing thoughts on an issue that affects everyone.
> > I believe we agree as a community we cannot be our best if the ideas and
> > talents of any group are excluded. I believe we agree specific measures
> > needed to overcome structural barriers and provide opportunities to broad
> > groups of people who still can't participate in the technology community
> > an equal basis.
> > To be direct, I have concerns about the duty officer idea. I support the
> > motivation behind the concept 100%. I have great respect for the people
> > have stepped up on this issue, both as technologists and as people in
> > general.
> > Being a self selected group, c4l has problems found in society at large.
> > the conference is at least as safe as other environments attendees
> > encounter such as airports, streets, bars, and restaurants, I would hope
> > the conference organizers could address issues when self policing (i.e.
> > people looking out for each other) proved inadequate.
> > My concern is that while harassment and assault are real issues, they
> > taken a life of their own and divert too much focus from helping people
> > improving everyone's skills to protecting people from attack. I fear
> > well meaning measures do not improve safety and possibly harden the few
> > miscreants they're intended to mitigate.
> > I hope my words will be perceived in the spirit intended.
> > kyle