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  July 2019

CODE4LIB July 2019

Subject:

Re: From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"

From:

Kate Deibel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:26:23 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Thank you for the clarifications, Tom. That is what we need now. To speak to specifics and not what-ifs or general cases that might happen.

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 Tom Johnson
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"

> 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.

my apologies. my implication was not at all meant along these lines.

on the contrary, i think the transparency issues in this case are utterly clear. the work undertaken by yourself and others to address them has my complete support.

what i object to is the idea, as exemplified in Eric's posts of June 28, that unsigned posts to this board constitute suspicious activity and that the normal administrative response is to de-anonymize in order to "get rid of them". i'm not aware of that being a practice here. if it has been, i'm extremely uncomfortable with it. in either case, Eric's reference to this enforcement practice was sudden, apparently unconnected to any documented policy or process, and coupled with claims that the entire subject matter of sexual harassment is unwelcome on this board. this combination seems chilling to me; it certainly makes /me/ reluctant to continue my limited participation here. this is what i meant by "intimidation".

again, apologies for the confusion. i was initially reluctant to be so direct about attributing issues to specific posts or people. it's clear to me now that if i'm going to chime in, that directness is called for.

- tom



On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:50 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
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

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

November 2019
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