Sorry if I wasn't clear. My issue with our collective loosey-gooseyness is less about the discussion list itself (Eric seems to be doing a fine job here), but with...basically everything that we do.

Take the example given just now of the Community Support Squad. I personally think such an organization is a great idea, but under what charter does it operate?  Who is qualified to speak on behalf of Code4Lib *as an organization* to sign off on its mission or how it is implemented?


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 Josh Welker <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 2:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"

I am initially repelled by the idea of formalizing an organization and the
bureaucracy it entails. But then I realize that's probably the only way to
moderate the community without depending on a benevolent-dictator
moderation model. Now I am just depressed that we live in such a world
where those are our two choices.

Joshua Welker
Library Systems and Discovery Coordinator
James C. Kirkpatrick Library
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
JCKL 2260
660.543.8022



On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:46 PM EDWIN VINCENT SPERR <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This seems like an excellent time to re-up a call for semi-formalizing
> Code4Lib as an organization.
>
> I know that folks really aren't thrilled with things like committees and
> quorums, but ultimately, groups that take collective decisions need a
> *mechanism* for doing so.
>
>
>
> 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 Kate
> Deibel <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 2:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note
> [admiistratativia]"
>
> Yes, you, Francis, and Mark publicly committed to working to expand the
> role of the CSS/CSVs at C4L19 via Mark's lightning talk. You three did drop
> the ball in announcing the conference volunteers would be continuing their
> roles. They were vetted and approved for the conference only. People may
> have objections to them serving community conduct roles in other venues.
> Furthermore, you have restricted participation to a narrow group. Not
> everyone could be a CSV at a conference. Maybe they weren't able to attend?
> Maybe they had additional duties to perform?
>
> All that is a separate issue from the "request" (really a directive since
> it comes from a place of authority) being told to stop posting. Yes, it
> does effectively hinder future harm from that conversation, but it also
> constrains any productive conversation as well. This is where the
> opaqueness debate comes in. There was no awareness of the CSS, its
> membership, and its authority (which the current CoC implies they have no
> enforcement). Furthermore, halting a conversation until the CSS group
> issues a PR is opaque because we have no timeframe or window into that
> process.
>
> Finally, I ask you all to consider the effects of basing CoC conversations
> around git terminology. Not everyone uses git or has a GitHub account. Not
> everyone gets git terminology. It took me more than a few minutes to
> remember what else PR could mean besides "public relations." How will the
> CSS support people ensure that git is not a barrier to community
> participation.
>
> 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 Anne
> Slaughter
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 1:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note
> [admiistratativia]"
>
> Seconding Francis' points, and adding that this "failure" does not rest on
> his shoulders. Mark, Francis, and I publicly committed in San Jose to
> working to expand the role of the CSS/CSVs to better support the community
> in situations like this. This work unfortunately hasn't been on any of our
> front burners yet for all the reasons you might suspect in a volunteer
> leadership role. But we have a systemic issue with the community's code of
> conduct. It is written to specifically restrict enforcement to the annual
> conference, which by definition doesn't give any clear or transparent
> guidance in dealing with issues outside of the conference proceedings. The
> work to address that starts now with the process Bobbi introduces in her
> message, and I assure you that we are committed to doing it openly. It's
> absolutely not ideal that it's happening in a reactive rather than
> proactive state, and for that I apologize as well.
>
> Anne Slaughter
> Director of Technology Services
> Reaching Across Illinois Library System
> Burr Ridge Office
> Phone: 630.734.5127
> Fax: 630.734.5050
> [log in to unmask]
> https://www.railslibraries.info
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM -0500, "Francis Kayiwa" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> Heya Kate my responses interleaved. For starters if there's any opacity I
> will take this as my fault/oversight. You, Anne, Mark and I spoke in San
> Jose about the transition to the CSSCSV group after the conference and
> promised to work on this once we were done. Unfortunately I've been dealing
> with lots of personal grief and this took less priority....
>
> On 7/3/19 12:37 PM, Kate Deibel wrote:
> > Honestly, this is worrisome to me.
> >
> > First, who are the members of the Community Support Squad? I can find no
> mention of it anywhere on the website or the wiki. And it's disturbing that
> such a group let such a coincidence in lack of coverage occur. Yes, there
> were people listed for the 2019 conference, but to our knowledge, that was
> to be only for the conference.
>
> It is the same group that was volunteered at the conference.
>
> https://2019.code4lib.org/conduct/#officers
>
> We didn't expect every one to want to continue but all the volunteers
> offered to hang on during the transition process which once again I failed
> to deliver on.
>
> >
> > Two, shutting down any conversation while an unknown cabal (redundant, I
> know) discusses a solution that is to come with no projected timeline not
> only shuts down hurt but also prevents people from speaking up against any
> hurt that has or is still happening. Imagine if you had done this exact
> intervention yesterday after the emails about how the C4L mailing list was
> only to about CODE. You would have prevented the many posters who stood up
> to counter that narrative. Any teaching moments or learning that have come
> afterwards would also have been squashed. All that would remain would be
> the unchallenged statements of what the C4L community is only about: code.
> That silence would speak way more hurt. Sure, the Community Support Squad
> will eventually raise a solution... I mean a "pull request"...
>
> Bobbi pointed out (and I told you about a week ago via our DM twitter that
> we were mostly out). Now it is fair to imagine if I'd actually followed
> through on establishing a CSSCSV group as I promised you that this perhaps
> could have been handled very differently. Again. Blame me for this and that
> would be fair.
>
> >
> > It's uncomfortably ironic in that this conversation started with
> concerns about the transparency of the authorship and the procedures behind
> the sexual harassment articles but is now being "handled" by an opaque
> process where we are told to wait until the mystery box goes ping.
> >
>
> I disagree here. The process isn't opaque. The processes will be discussed
> and we welcome PR's via the aforementioned pull request.
> Furthermore if that doesn't work, you and others are welcome to send
> messages to [log in to unmask]
>
> I want to stress, I've gone rogue here and I am speaking without
> consulting with the rest of the CSSCSV team.
>
> Cheers,
> ./fxk
>