LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  February 2016

CODE4LIB February 2016

Subject:

Re: [code4libcon] Proposed Duty Officer

From:

Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:18:05 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

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
> > >
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager