Git flow does not by itself equal a democratic process.
I imagine that the organizing committee for the last Code4Lib conference had some sort of formal step to *ratify* the code of conduct that bound its participants. That is what is needed here as well.
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 Jenn C <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 7:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"
[External Sender]
This PR to the CoC was merged more than a week ago:
https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/commit/b6cc99c7b7e16cdf278b5c4565d661ba53c011ea
I think (????????? see GH comments previously) that is different from the
PR that was announced for comments. This PR introduced (again I think??)
this language which talks about how anonymity should be handled. I don't
think this implies any fundamental change to the functioning of the list. I
am a little confused why this PR was merged without discussion but the
other PR announced and what process is actually happening.
jenn
### Anonymity
In general the community prefers to know who is writing. Exceptions may
arise when the you feel at risk; in that case, the you may contact one or
more [Community Support Volunteers](css_volunteers.md) for help forwarding
your message. At the least, your message should include a *reason* for why
you are choosing to be anonymous. For example:
* "I'm looking for advice on how to present myself for another job, but my
boss doesn't know I'm looking"
* "I'd like some advice in dealing with a programming
conflict, and other members of the team are on this list"
### Surveys
If you wish to ask people on the listserv to participate in a survey, you
should minimally identify:
* yourself
* purpose of the survey
* the reason you're asking **in this listserv**
* what kinds of information you're collecting
* (if collecting identifying information such as email address, name), what
you plan to do with it, and how you'll keep it secure.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:26 AM EDWIN VINCENT SPERR <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
