No apology needed, honestly trying to get a grip on the process!

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:02 AM Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Jenn-
>
> Sorry — I merged the other PR prematurely.  I didn't mean to short-circuit
> discussion here, and I would be happy to revert that change if anyone would
> like me to do that.
>
> Since the other PR is open for comments (
> https://github.com/code4lib/code-of-conduct/pull/80), I think it's
> probably better to just resolve the discussion there.
>
> -Esmé
>
> > On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>