Here's an eaxample.

suppose Alice is worried about harrassment by Bob. Eve has on the list of proposed duty officers. Unfortunately Eve and Alice were once a couple, so Alice would feel comfortable going to Eve to address a possible situation with Bob. There's no accusation against Eve, but it would be best for everyone if Eve was not put in a difficult situation. And Alice really doesn't want to explain her relationship with Eve. (No one should be forced to explain a relationship!)

It's best to attract many volunteers and pick a few, maye out of a hat, without prejudice to those who aren't picked.

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>