Fully agreed that anonymity is sometimes necessary to protect individuals.

My interpretation of the email I responded to was that the anonymous form
was for feedback for the idea of the proposed duty officers rather than the
suitability of particular individuals to fill this role.

My apologies to everyone if I have misunderstood.

If the idea is to collect feedback pertaining to specific individuals, I
believe it would have been more appropriate to collect anonymous feedback
that potentially included everyone (rather than a select few) so that
suitability concerns could be resolved before people put their name on a
volunteer list. As things are now, anyone on the duty officer list who
doesn't wind up serving for any reason might be wrongly assumed to have
been barred for being a harasser regardless of any public explanation.

I hope that the process for resolving accusations would be a matter of
public discussion.

kyle

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Becky Yoose <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
> > >
> >
>