You are correct in that we are compiling feedback on possible duty
officers. Going back to Chad's call for volunteers email [1], here is the
brief description of what the officers will be and will not be doing:

Briefly, a duty officers is:

   - a highly visible point of contact for conference attendees for any
possible enforcement or violation of the #codeofconduct4lib
   - responsible for taking initial reports of problems and referring them
to conference organizers or to appropriate services
   - willing to be interrupted from regular conference program or
activities during their shift

Duty officers are not:

   - expected to answer general queries for the conference
   - responsible for handling incidents beyond the initial report
   - expected to perform duties of professional counselors, security, or
other emergency professionals - only to refer to professional services when
deemed appropriate

And a little bit of context - the duty officer roll came out of the
discussion on a pull request on GitHub [2] as a way to address the lack of
formal reporting and enforcement procedures of the #codeofconduct4lib faced
by last year's local planning committee. This is a step to help remedy the
current deficiency so future local planning committees are able to have a
real-life, actionable procedural structure in place instead of trying to
create that procedure on the fly.

So, we cannot pull names from a hat if these folks are going to help the
local planning committee in implementing the #codeofconduct4lib. Pulling
names from a hat completely removes much needed context in the selection
process. If I remember correctly, there was a code4lib talk some time ago
that touched on considering various contexts surrounding technology...

[Planning ahead? Actual procedures? In code4lib? What a strange time we
live in...]

[1] https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1602&L=CODE4LIB&F=&S=&P=76899
[2] https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/pull/53

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
> For clarity, am I correct in understanding we are collecting feedback only
> on those volunteering to become duty officers, and not on those who
> compile/manage harassment information nor on those responsible for
> determining what actions to take in response to incidents of harassment?
>
> kyle
>