On Jul 14, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Fitchett, Deborah <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Less metaphorically: if someone has in the past faced harassment because of who they are, or job repercussions because their manager didn't like something they said, and wants to avoid that in future by using a pseudonym for public discourse, why shouldn't they?
IMHO, the Code4Lib mailing list should not be akin to an anonymous chat room where anyone can come in and say whatever they desire under the cloak of anonymity.
One must be accountable for what they say, and accountability is increased by knowledge of the source. It is similar to information literacy and citing one's references so the validity of an argument can be substantiated. Moreover, I don't believe public forums, like Code4Lib, are the sort of place to voice things like "my boss is a baddy, and here's why...". Such topics are too sensitive when there are so many people just lurking. Email is not a good medium for such things because too many things get lost in the writing and in the reading. There is too much emotion. A mailing list is poor medium for such a things because too few people really respond; too few people respond and there is no real way to gauge what the group thinks. Face-to-face communications or communications to a small, known list of people are place for such topics.
What I really don't want is a no-nothing username and an obfuscated email address. Mail coming from EM <[log in to unmask]> sans any signature is irrespecutful. "Who is EM, and why should I care? How do I know whether or not EM is a real person? If I reply to EM, then where is the email going?" I can live with [log in to unmask] sans a signature, but a signature would be nice. Mail from something like [log in to unmask] sans a signature is okay, I guess. At least the email addresses not obfuscated. But what about [log in to unmask]
University of Notre Dame