 |
 |
Wow. We could not have gotten a better follow-up to our long thread about coders and non-coders. I don't git. I've used it to read code, but never contributed. I even downloaded a gui with a cute icon that is supposed to make it easy, and it still is going to take some learning. So I'm afraid that it either needs to be on a different platform for editing, OR someone (you know, the famed "someone") is going to have to do updates for us non-gitters. kc On 11/30/12 7:36 AM, Michael J. Giarlo wrote: > All, > > Please feel free to make the changes you'd like to see and then submit a > pull request. I have added instructions for how to do this in the README: > > https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy > > I say this not to shame anyone in the jerky "patches welcome!" sense, but > as an acknowledgement that the way shiz gets done in code4lib is for each > of us to take individual initiative. You're all empowered to do so. I > look forward to seeing your changes in the repo. > > -Mike > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I'd support removing or somehow couching language about any organizer, >> including any volunteer, immediately ending a talk. >> >> All the other sanctions seem to involve the likelihood of deliberation >> involving some time and multiple people, and some possibility of a >> misunderstanding being cleared up. I don't think a single volunteer—who, in >> theory, is granted the power to ban someone for life!—is going to ban >> someone or refuse to post a talk online without thinking about it for a >> while and involving other organizers. >> >> By their nature, however, something said in the middle of a talk doesn't >> admit of much in the way of deliberation between organizers, or time to >> deliberate, and you can't really finish a talk ended by someone if other >> organizers persuade the volunteer that they made a mistake. The action has >> to be taken quickly, by someone who hasn't talked it through with others >> and is largely irreversible. It's a recipe for controversy and >> disagreement, and potential unfairness. >> >> I propose that the right reaction to an offensive talk is for people to >> walk out of it while it's going on, and to deal with any sanctions required >> AFTER the talk is over, when there's time and space to get the decision >> right. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Tim Spalding >> LibraryThing >> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet