Here's the current first paragraph:

Code4Lib is dedicated to providing a harassment-free community 
experience for everyone. We do not tolerate harassment in any form. 
Discriminatory language and imagery (including sexual) is not 
appropriate for any event venue, including talks, or any community 
channel such as the chatroom or mailing list. Participants at any 
Code4Lib event or in any community channel violating these rules should 
expect to be sanctioned, expelled, or banned at the discretion of the 
organizers or channel administrators or volunteers. Reports of 
harassment will be addressed immediately.

It feels heavy-handed to me. My first suggestion is that right after 
saying that that we don't tolerate harassmente (sentences 1 & 2) and 
define what we mean (sentence 3) I think the next thing to say is that 
we encourage anyone who is made uncomfortable or sees what appears to be 
harassment taking place to speak up in the venue in which it is happening.

The geekfeminism statement is:

" If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, 
or have any other concerns, please contact a member of conference staff 
immediately. "

We'd need to change that wording because there isn't always someone we 
could call "staff" -- I prefer some wording about "speaking up" "making 
it be known to ... ?" (This is where I crap out because I can't really 
quite figure out what you should do, for example, on IRC other than 
speak out to the list.)


On 11/30/12 9:07 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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 
>> 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]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet