In at least one initial post early on, I did identify myself.  I think this is a considerate group of professionals and I would like for you to consider some things:

-The survey was anonymous.  Anyone could have emailed me at any time with questions on more specifics about the survey and some did and I answered those questions.  I understand that some disagree with the oath I took on that.  I have heard from some of you and in the future, I will make some if the suggested modifications. 

-Throughout the time of collecting information and writing part one of the series on sexual harassment in libraries, I received some very critical and negative messages.  In part one of the series, I revealed my own experience with sexual harassment, outside the library profession, in the author’s note.  I decided to do this at the last moment.  When you get your in box filled with with some mean messages, it is not fun and when you get called out, it is also not fun.  When I revealed my own experience with sexual harassment, it was certainly my own choice but also putting yourself out there.  Even though I am the writer, I still have a right to privacy and right to protect myself from in some cases cruel messages. 

-I am human and nothing I ever do will be perfect including parts of the investigative process.  Some things could have done differently and I have already taken owner that.  

I appreciate you reading this and I hope as you all move forward that you will take into consideration the thoughts of where a poster is coming from and that person is human too.  

Grateful, 
Sunni Battin 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to identify
> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with legitimate
> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being
> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than
> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that
> intimidation.
> 
> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that if
> someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging
> information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations for
> asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would use
> sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for myself when i
> say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation.
> 
> 
> ---
> Natasha Allen (she/her)
> System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library
> San José State University
> 1 Washington Square
> San José , CA 95192
> [log in to unmask]
> 408-808-2655
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:23 AM Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
>> 
>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can
>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both
>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that
>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of posts
>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, any rule
>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and topics.
>> 
>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, excluding
>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the discussion
>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be excluded:
>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, but i'd
>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable
>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community. unless
>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy bosses,
>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry very
>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice.
>> 
>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to identify
>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with legitimate
>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being
>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than
>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that
>> intimidation.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> tom
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:14 AM Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
>>> 
>>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can
>>> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both
>>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that
>>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility of posts
>>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the restriction, any
>> rule
>>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people and topics.
>>> 
>>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a bit, excluding
>>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. the
>> discussion
>>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to be excluded:
>>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing example, but
>> i'd
>>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable
>>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional community.
>> unless
>>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of baddy bosses,
>>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes me worry
>> very
>>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice.
>>> 
>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to
>> identify
>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with
>> legitimate
>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being
>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than
>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that
>>> intimidation.
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> 
>>> tom
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:23 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems like
>>>> there is a good technical reason for doing so.  To disallow the
>>>> LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some participant's mail
>> from
>>>> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" status by the
>>>> receiving mail agent).
>>>> 
>>>> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good reasons to use
>>>> them (as have been described in other messages in this thread).  The
>> use of
>>>> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that signal into
>>>> account as they read and consider the content of the message.  I
>> wouldn't
>>>> want to see aliases banned from the list.  I think it is also a health
>>>> practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever possible so
>>>> community members get to know each other.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Murray
>>>> Open Source Community Advocate
>>>> Index Data, LLC
>>>> On Jul 12, 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called DMARC, it
>>>> is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have your
>>>> email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a feature. [0]
>>>> Yes, direct replies to an address like
>>>> [log in to unmask] do make it back to the
>>>> original sender, but without some sort of signature can be very
>> difficult
>>>> to know to whom one is replying.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily identifiable. One
>>>> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their
>> affiliation,
>>>> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, and 2)
>>>> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message you can
>>>> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my address
>> is
>>>> [log in to unmask] The posting above works because there is/was a full
>>>> signature. Postings from [log in to unmask] are difficult to
>>>> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM <
>>>> [log in to unmask]> with no signature I
>> think
>>>> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you are a
>>>> dog." [1]
>>>>> 
>>>>> [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp
>>>>> [1] dog -
>>>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>