I personally agree that requiring verified identities for posters is potentially *really* disruptive to the list. It seems a disproportionate response to what is still mostly a theoretical risk.
I also trust that any changes to the fundamental functioning of this list would only be undertaken after a period of broad discussion followed by a (very) formal vote. This list is common property and is still a primary communication channel for this community. Decisions regarding changes to it's function (or the rules that govern its participants) should be made democratically.
Edwin V. Sperr, MLIS
AU/UGA Medical Partnership
Office of Graduate Medical Education
Clinical Information Librarian
St. Mary’s Hospital
1230 Baxter Street
Athens, GA 30606
p: 706-389-3864
e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
w: medicalpartnership.usg.edu<http://www.medicalpartnership.usg.edu/>
________________________________
From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"
[External Sender]
Hi Tom,
Thank you for responding with your clarifications. Much appreciated.
Natasha
---
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 1:08 PM Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> > 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
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
