Heya Kate my responses interleaved. For starters if there's any opacity
I will take this as my fault/oversight. You, Anne, Mark and I spoke in
San Jose about the transition to the CSSCSV group after the conference
and promised to work on this once we were done. Unfortunately I've been
dealing with lots of personal grief and this took less priority....
On 7/3/19 12:37 PM, Kate Deibel wrote:
> Honestly, this is worrisome to me.
> First, who are the members of the Community Support Squad? I can find no mention of it anywhere on the website or the wiki. And it's disturbing that such a group let such a coincidence in lack of coverage occur. Yes, there were people listed for the 2019 conference, but to our knowledge, that was to be only for the conference.
It is the same group that was volunteered at the conference.
We didn't expect every one to want to continue but all the volunteers
offered to hang on during the transition process which once again I
failed to deliver on.
> Two, shutting down any conversation while an unknown cabal (redundant, I know) discusses a solution that is to come with no projected timeline not only shuts down hurt but also prevents people from speaking up against any hurt that has or is still happening. Imagine if you had done this exact intervention yesterday after the emails about how the C4L mailing list was only to about CODE. You would have prevented the many posters who stood up to counter that narrative. Any teaching moments or learning that have come afterwards would also have been squashed. All that would remain would be the unchallenged statements of what the C4L community is only about: code. That silence would speak way more hurt. Sure, the Community Support Squad will eventually raise a solution... I mean a "pull request"...
Bobbi pointed out (and I told you about a week ago via our DM twitter
that we were mostly out). Now it is fair to imagine if I'd actually
followed through on establishing a CSSCSV group as I promised you that
this perhaps could have been handled very differently. Again. Blame me
for this and that would be fair.
> It's uncomfortably ironic in that this conversation started with concerns about the transparency of the authorship and the procedures behind the sexual harassment articles but is now being "handled" by an opaque process where we are told to wait until the mystery box goes ping.
I disagree here. The process isn't opaque. The processes will be
discussed and we welcome PR's via the aforementioned pull request.
Furthermore if that doesn't work, you and others are welcome to send
messages to [log in to unmask]
I want to stress, I've gone rogue here and I am speaking without
consulting with the rest of the CSSCSV team.