 |
 |
+1 #everything that bess said On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Bess Sadler <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I am not aware of any recent egregious issues and I don't think code4lib > is a hotbed of misogynist behavior, certainly not compared to more > mainstream tech conferences or something notorious like DefCon. Having a > policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and > which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any > individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for > harassment. It protects conference organizers legally, it gives us an > agreed upon way to respond if incidents do arise, and having such a policy > is a proven way to make conferences more welcoming to women and gender > minorities. > > I am not comfortable discussing my individual experience in public more > than I already have. I have acted as a lightning rod for these kinds of > discussions in the past and I am not interested in playing that role again. > > I am not comfortable discussing specific incidents that have been related > to me in confidence, and I am REALLY not interested in rehashing more > public incidents, I think that would be a train wreck. As for what has > happened that we're trying to address: Sometimes people make thougtless > jokes. Sometimes people say alienating things without meaning to. Sometimes > people do things they might later wish they hadn't done, because they were > drunk, or having a good time, or never knew a certain word carried a > certain connotation for some people. These things are not really > news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing > how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss > questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and > how to make library technology more inclusive in general. > > Bess > > > On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Michele R Combs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO. Then the list can > get back to code :) > > > > It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is > comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or > SAA function or, heck, your basic office party). In that case, I submit > that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same > approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life. > > > > Michele > > ________________________________________ > > From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of > Jonathan Rochkind [[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea > > > > ...Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If > > it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can > > easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT > > calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is > > that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)... >