Thanks, Kate. Based upon the posts earlier, I received the distinct
impression that the anonymity discussion is meant to put unecessary
boundaries around the second issue.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:35 PM Kate Deibel <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> While Risa was spot on with my criticisms about the survey approach, I
> want to be clear that there are two issues here.
>
> One is having a policy for when it does come to research collection
> related to the community and setting standards for what we expect to see.
> This is especially true when it comes to sensitive topics.
>
> The second issue is the debate that came up about topics are "permitted"
> in this community.
>
> The proposed code of conduct changes address both. The current
> conversation about anonymity only concerns the first, unless one intends to
> use the absence of anonymity to make this a difficult place to discuss a
> multitude of issues that don't involve programming languages.
>
> Katherine Deibel | PhD
> Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian
> Syracuse University Libraries
> T 315.443.7178
> [log in to unmask]
> 222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244
> Syracuse University
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Josh
> Welker
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 12:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note
> [admiistratativia]"
>
> I agree with Kate here. This seems too much like those cases where one
> patron leaves an empty bag of chips on a table, so the whole library
> plasters obnoxious "NO FOOD ON THE TABLES" signs all over and creates a
> 12-person ad hoc committee to discuss food policies. I don't think we need
> to create a formal policy based on what happened here except maybe a
> statement that we will not passive-aggressively shut down conversations
> about sensitive issues due to being deemed off-topic.
>
> Joshua Welker
> Library Systems and Discovery Coordinator James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093 JCKL 2260
> 660.543.8022
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:19 AM S B <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > 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_d
> > og
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>


-- 

Risa Wolf

Senior Product Manager, E-Reading

Digital


The New York Public Library

445 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016

212-621-0543

nypl.org