Apologies for the short reply with my manager's hat firmly in place -
transparency is good, but there are times when a particular process or
discussion should not be public. Given the sensitive nature of some of the
feedback that might be presented about particular individuals, transparency
would not be a good fit for the feedback process.

Thanks,
Becky

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Eric Phetteplace <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > -Esmé
> >
> > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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
> > are
> > > needed to overcome structural barriers and provide opportunities to
> broad
> > > groups of people who still can't participate in the technology
> community
> > on
> > > 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
> > who
> > > 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.
> > If
> > > 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
> > have
> > > taken a life of their own and divert too much focus from helping people
> > and
> > > improving everyone's skills to protecting people from attack. I fear
> > these
> > > 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
> >
>